On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't. Still, encoded in the spirit (that >> >> refers to free software, bringing in the free software definition), is >> >> the notion of protecting users' freedoms, among them the freeom #0, to >> >> run the software for any purpose. >> > >> > And where in GPLv2 is "Freedom #0"? >> >> It may sound like thin evidence for someone arriving from Venus today, >> but the preamble talks about "free software", some passages clearly >> imply that software under this license is "free software", the license >> is published by the Free Software Foundation, and the Free Software >> Foundation has a published definition of Free Software that >> establishes the 4 freedoms.
> And that doesn't matter. Doens't matter for what? To indicate what the Linux copyright holders meant? Sure it doesn't. I never claimed it did. To indicate what the authors of the GPL meant? To indicate the spirit of the license they wrote? Yes, it matters a lot. And the latter is what my participation here is all about: to show that the spirit didn't change at all. Until you acknowledge and understand this, I should refrain from answering your other postings. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/