structures. I.e., this probably
has nothing to do with GCC or the kernel.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software
well leave the 'back' out.
--
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
with the license, you don't have permission
to distribute the software at all.
--
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
.
Collaborating with the competition (coopetition) on a common
technology platform reduces costs for anyone who chooses to get
involved, giving them a collective competitive edge against anyone who
doesn't.
http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/papers/free-software/BMind.pdf
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Feb 16, 2007, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Feb 15, 2007, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 2/15/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The /whole point/ of the GPL is to funnel contributions back.
Bzzzt. The whole
together.
--
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
if the sources still aren't?
#include std/IANAL.h
--
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
to argue it's an accessibility issue, if local fair use
has provisions for it. Even for manual translations.
--
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
, you *can* build a module for Linux without using any kernel
code. It just takes a lot of work to implement all you'd otherwise
need from the kernel in a clean-room fashion.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
is not there, could we either replace it with actual GPLed
code or remove the driver?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Feb 9, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into
granting you power over not only the BK history
It's exactly the same as a file system. If you put some
the code himself. How come you
wouldn't welcome a BK-export piece of software that you could use
yourself to create and maintain the CVS tree, without having to
develop and maintain the software, and insist on developing such
software yourself, but only if someone else pays for it?
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:30:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Can you offer any plausible explanation other than a good faith desire
to help the open source community, albeit in a non-traditional way?
I don't see what you've done
all.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
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
that's the way it works.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
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
:-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
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
On Feb 15, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
The people we spoke with were far more interested in the ability to
move people onto BK when they needed to.
They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br
an rsync server,
compressed with gzip --rsyncable?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
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
are his coworker, you are competing with Larry,
Linus license goes away.
Hey, cool! The nice thing is that I probably don't even have to start
hacking anything, I already (pretend to) maintain GNU CVS Utilities.
Can I volunteer to maintain is for OSDL, at no charge?
--
Alexandre Oliva
a Synaptics
touchpad as part of the Dualpoint pointing devices.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
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
On Feb 3, 2005, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:14AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Feb 2, 2005, Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:07:27 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
With a Synaptics I suppose? You
place. Is this what
you intend to do? I hope not.
Thanks,
--
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
, is the aggregate work still the
result of mere aggregation?
--
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
, and thus
not be subject to the requirement that the whole be released under the
GPL?
--
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
to copyright law.
Exactly. No disagreement here.
I'm not disputing this fact.
In the point you quoted above, I was only disputing your argument of
mere aggregation in the context of dynamic linking.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
In other words, in the GPL, Program does NOT mean binary. Never has.
Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above?
Here's how it relates:
- if a program is not a derived
://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1 )
--
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
small portions of copyrighted works for
personal use. http://www.petitiononline.com/netlivre
Remember that the GPL is not only about US copyright law or US
courts.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
the source code of a GPLed work, or any work for that
matter, acceptance is voluntary, and one shouldn't enter an agreement
one's not willing to abide by.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
if condoning binary blobs were morally acceptable, we still
wouldn't be gaining anything from this relationship, we'd only be
enabling vendors to sell us their undocumented hardware while denying
us our freedoms.
Why should we do this?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF
(the 4.3 development cycle has just
started), but it wouldn't hurt to start fixing incompatibilities
sooner rather than later, and coming up with a clean and uniform set
of inline macros that express intended meaning for the kernel to use.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
to
an educational tool, that wouldn't impose any major inconvenience to
those who are entitled to use the combination of code that can't be
distributed.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
interfaces with code that was already there before, they might claim
they're still entitled to do so. But if it's new code they interface
with, or new code they wrote after this clarification is published,
would they still be entitled to estoppel? FWIW, IANAL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
not? ;-)
--
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
On Jun 12, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
not? ;-)
Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake
On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
You mean all
, mainly
because the home users are the ones with least (individual) power to
demand respect for their freedoms.
--
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
it.
[...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
this spirit?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the
license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd
like to think the issues that arose from
do that.
--
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
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
[...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source
On Jun 13, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
And they give you
to be the best strategy
in game theory for continuous runs of the prisoners dilemma.
It is, indeed.
Now the remaining piece of the proof is to show that the GPLv2 is
tit-for-tat.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org
nearly impossible to prove
that an opinion held by someone is not his own. People quite often
arrive at similar opinions independently.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL
the GPLv3, and adopted by its other proponents.
--
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
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:55:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
you must
. It merely arranges, as
best as we've managed a copyright license to do, that they can't be
used as excuses (or tools) to disrespect the freedoms that the GPL
demands all licensees to respect for other users.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on
their hardware. And they have that right, because the Hardware *ISN'T*
covered by the GPL.
Indeed
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(and, in the case of a TiVO, the signing
keys are part of the installation, not the running or building.
Is installation not a precondition for running?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
On Jun 13, 2007, Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once upon a time, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
TiVo retains
:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
Are you an idiot, or do you just choose to ignore all proof that
doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs?
;-) :-P :-D
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
device?
Do TiVO customers lose anything from the change from one non-Free
software to another? (the Linux binary, as shipped in the TiVO, has
become non-Free)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
it,
then the manufacturer is locking you in, and therefore you're not
free. This is a clear violation of the spirit of the license, even if
the legalese might make room for some such misbehavior.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org
happy about it?
--
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
? In the microwave
oven, maybe?
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:38:05 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
In 95% of the desktop computers, you can't make changes to the OS that
runs on it. Whom is this good for?
Faulty logic. I have yet to find a computer that I couldn't change the OS on.
I was not talking about
for personal,
family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for
incorporation into a dwelling.
does it even qualify as a Open Source lincense anymore by the OSI
terms?
The definition is about the hardware, not the software, so it may
still qualify.
--
Alexandre Oliva
?
this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party
retains the ability to install modified object code on the User
Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
the license so as to provide guidance as to the intent of the
authors, such that the disagreement doesn't happen again.
If there's room in each country's laws to fix the problem, that is.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So, TiVo includes a copy of Linux in its DVR.
Stop right there.
You seem to make the mistake to think that software is something physical.
Err, no. Software, per legal definitions
. But the GPL doesn't limit itself to the
former. It explicitly talks about copies.
--
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
On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:59, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients
all the rights that you have
On Jun 14, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 02:55:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
While TiVo retains the ability to replace, upgrade, fix, break or make
any other change in the GPLed software in the device, it ought to pass
it on to its customers.
So
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:51:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:38:05 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
In 95% of the desktop computers, you can't make changes
On Jun 14, 2007, Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:58:26AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Do we actually get any benefit whatsoever from TiVO's choice of Linux
as the kernel for its device?
Sure, if they make any changes or fixes to Linux. Other than
?
Yes. The customer gets the copy that TiVO stored in the hard disk in
the device it sells. And it's that copy that the customer is entitled
to modify because TiVO is still able to modify it.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
On Jun 14, 2007, Matt Keenan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Err, no. Software, per legal definitions in Brazil, US and elsewhere,
require some physical support. That's the hard disk in the TiVO DVR,
in this case. I don't see how this matters, though.
I'm now intrigued
mean the copyright holder has to: s/he can
always grant an additional permission, or simply refrain from
enforcing this provision of the license.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
?
It doesn't, and this is *exactly* why I dispute the claim that GPLv2
is tit-for-tat.
GPL3 is a very different beast with a much wider agenda,
The agenda is *precisely* the same: ensure that all users are free to
modify and share the licensed software.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
Software in it.
It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use
the hardware to deprive users of freedom over the software that
they're entitled to have.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, well... In the case of Windos and other proprietary OS's I try to
educate people and get them to switch.
Good
;-)
--
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
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
People don't get your copy, so they're not entitled to anything about
it.
When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have
a right to modify that copy.
Umm. I
On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/14/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:59, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When they download the software, they get another copy, and they have
a right to modify that copy.
But you get the TiVO corporations copy
On Jun 14, 2007, Paulo Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ find -name *.c | xargs grep any later version | wc -l
3138
$ find -name *.c | wc -l
9482
How many of these don't mention version 2?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
, so you, the licensee, must
respect others' freedoms as well. Is this the in kind you're
talking about? Or are you mistaken about the actual meaning of even
GPLv2?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
to work together, and to merge?
--
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
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Sure, if they make any changes or fixes to Linux. Other than that,
only the same benefit that Microsoft get from Windows piracy - TiVo
employees become familiar with Linux and are more
On Jun 14, 2007, Chris Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the
hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
Software in it.
No you're not...you're talking about being able to hack
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Let me see if I got your position right: when TiVO imposes
restrictions, that's ok
Sure. I think it's ok that Microsoft imposes restrictions too on the
software they create. It's
On Jun 14, 2007, Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu 14 Jun 2007 01:07, Alexandre Oliva pondered:
then maybe the small
company could have been more careful about the regulations. There are
various ways to prevent these changes that don't involve imposing
restrictions
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
It's not that the hardware is deciding to impose restrictions on its
own. It's the hardware distributor that is deciding to use the
hardware to impose restrictions on the user. Seems like
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:03:40 -0300, Alexandre Oliva said:
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a company sells you hardware that includes a ROM that contains GPL'ed
software, are they in violation of the GPL if they don't include a ROM
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
In other words, Red Hat distributes copies (and yes, you *get* that copy),
and you cannot modify that copy that you got.
And Red Hat can't either. I thought that was quite obvious
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?
Do you need anything else?
No, I'm quite happy that this is all.
But if by the question you mean would you think
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:26:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
In the program you received under GPLv1.
Hey, you said there was code under GPLv1.1 in the Linux tree. Then,
there should be a copy of GPLv1.1 in there, otherwise
, to whatever license they want.
This is not true. Have you ever read the copyright assignment
contract? It very clearly constrains the ways the FSF can release the
code.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
improvements (to
the _software_).
Can you explain to me how it is that the Tivoization provisions (the
only objection you have to GPLv3) conflict with this?
(nevermind our disagreement as to whether tit-for-tat applies to
either GPLv2 or GPLv3)
--
Alexandre Oliva http
a licensee, and it only covers your
work if you choose to license it that way. And then, you're the sole
licensor of that piece of the work.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL
said it couldn't impose further
restrictions.
--
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
On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Giving back in kind is obvious. I give you source code to do with as you
see fit. I just expect you to give back in kind: source code for me to do
with as I see fit
On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you are not entitled to dictate the hardware's design (or any other
copyrighted work's design),
Agreed.
By your argument we'd have to put the following items into the
license too:
No, you're
of licensees.
--
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
than GPLv3, right?
--
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
spirit and quite possibly the letter of the license.
--
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
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Then would you consider relicensing Linux under GPLv3 + additional
permission for Tivoization?
No. I'm not stupid.
The GPLv3 explicitly allows removing additional permissions.
So what
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I see what you mean. IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works.
There *are* lawyers who have said that what Tivo did was legal.
What I wrote above had ZERO to do with TiVO. Please re
or offer warranty? Why should this be different just
because it's a software component?
Artificial distinctions in the law
Well, then, lock down the software. Make it irreplaceable, even by
yourself. Problem solved.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
.
--
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
1 - 100 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
