On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/14/2007 02:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
No, by this twisted logic Tivo *cannot* modify that particular copy
any more than you can. They can modify *another* copy (just like you)
and they can *replace* the copy in your device
to prohibit users
from running modified versions of your code that they don't authorize
themselves, these users would do *more* than TiVO alone ever could,
and if a fraction of them contributes something back, you're way
better off.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
is at least somewhat incoherent.
Can you help me make sense of 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
restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted in
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
On Jun 14, 2007, Chris Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to
everyone - just to those that get the binaries.
Exactly. Not even to the upstream
On Jun 14, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:55:09 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:
And the FSF is trying to control the design and licensing of
hardware
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:13:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Chris Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
It's your position that mingles the issues and permits people to use
the hardware to deprive
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the very beginning of Linux, even before I chose the GPLv2 as the
license, the thing I cared about was that source code
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and
makes improvements under GPLv3+, you're going to make an effort to
accept them, rather than rejecting them because
On Jun 14, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:32:08 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
They let you have the code and make changes to it,
Not to the software installed in the device.
So now you want
it was at least useful or
enlightening to some.
I'll now try to step out of the discussion, but I guess I'm just as
addicted to flames. I don't see that it's getting anywhere, and I
don't particularly enjoy the name calling. And then, I was politely
invited to go away...
--
Alexandre Oliva http
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
snip
So let's look at that section 6 that you talk about, and quote the
relevant parts, will we:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients
from helping, by making the license so strict that those people
(who are nice people, but have their options limited by stupid laws and
regulations) cannot use the GPLv3.
Just like v2 hinders their many customers.
Are you so sure v2 is better in this regard?
--
Alexandre Oliva http
On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:46:40 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Well, then, ok: do all that loader and hardware signature-checking
dancing, sign the image, store it in the machine, and throw the
signing key away. This should be good
, not that the vendor must offer the user a
sport car to take her there.
The goal is not to burden the vendor. The goal is to stop the vendor
from artificially burdening the user.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work
of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have
you)
Wait, a signed filesystem image that happens
On Jun 14, 2007, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Hmm... So, if someone takes one of the many GPLv2+ contributions and
makes
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:27:27 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
somewhat sarcastic
And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or
other GPL'd software installed
On Jun 14, 2007, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 19:20:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I understand this very well. You'd have to get the kernel upgraded to
GPLv3 in order to accept the contribution.
Why do you keep saying upgraded to GPLv3?
Just because it has
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
It's disappointing that I took so much of everyone's time without
achieving any of my goals.
What do you expect, when you tried to entertain a legal picture of the
GPLv2 that even the FSF
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an
issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't control
that in the US (it does in Brazil), and nobody had
, and gives up
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:45:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Where's the payback, or the payforward?
And then, tit-for-tat is about equivalent retaliation, an eye for an
eye. Where's the retaliation here?
If GPLv2 were tit-for-tat, if someone invents artifices to prevent
.
Is there anything not clear about freedom #0, in the free software
definition, alluded to by the preamble that talks about free software
in very similar terms?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
of the freedoms that the GPL is designed to protect.
And these conditions are what make it a bad thing, and that deviate,
if not from the legal conditions, at least from the spirit of the
license.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
to the FSF. That would be very
wrong.
--
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 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
I produce egg yolk. I give it to you under terms that say if you
pass this on, you must do so in such a way that doesn't stop anyone
from
On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Yes. They'd have to give up the ability to update the software, or
pass it on to the user. If they can't do the latter, they could still
do the former. How bad would this be for them, do
On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up
So you're blaming Tivo for the fact that your
anything about 'no
further restrictions on the freedoms to modify and share the
software'?
Does it include any mechanisms to stop people from booting modified
versions of the Linux that ships with the machine?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*OR* inherits the default license of the project.
You got any case law for this? Seriously, I could use this for
FSFLA's IRPF2007-Livre project.
http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/freeing-the-lion
--
Alexandre Oliva http
exception, methinks, but IANAL.
--
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
to escape the conditions
determined by 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
was present.
IANAL, but I believe that's how it works. And this means Linux is
under GPLv2, no matter how much of the code in it is available under
any other versions of the GPL, or even different (but compatible)
licenses.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
by your argument, the user has some right to modify the software,
on that piece of hardware it bought which had free software on it,
correct?
Yes. This means the hardware distributor who
of licensing
terms for different reasons.
I'd very much like to hear (err read), from those who think v2 serves
their reasons to contribute to Linux better than v3, why that is so.
Thanks,
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly, it is _at most_ a new, partial copy of existing works and
hence you need the permission to copy all the works in question.
Wouldn't you consider the signing key as one of these existing works?
--
Alexandre Oliva http
intentionally put
there to stop you from doing what you wanted with the software, then
there's clearly a violation of the spirit of the license, and you
might even have a case of copyright infringement, but IANAL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America
On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:25:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work
, or quid pro quo.
--
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
restriction on the exercise of the rights granted in the license?
And, per the spirit, if the manufacturer can still install and run
modified versions of the software on that hardware, is it not failing
to comply with the spirit of passing on all the rights that you have?
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 15, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
any fscking thing.
case 2'': tivo provides source, end
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
remembers
what s/he meant.
--
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
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 00:14:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys, in fighting for your rights, you should look a bit at *other*
peoples rights too. Including the rights of hw
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:39:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're making an artificial distinction based on whether the
*SOFTWARE* has a certain license or not.
What matters
On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:14:49AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm not pushing anything. I'm
defending the GPLv3 from accusations that it's departing from the GPL
spirit, and I'm trying to find out
change the fact that it's the actual text of the license
that matters in the end.
Depends, matters for what? ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED
the license were actually totally bogus.
Actually... What you name as two separate arguments were two parts of
*one* of the 3 arguments I've raised so far.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is very much relevant. By admitting that the key is not part of the
work, you have lost all moral basis to claim control over it.
legal basis, maybe. legality and morality are quite different
concepts.
--
Alexandre Oliva http
is used to disrespect others freedoms, as it is
by TiVO, then TiVO is failing to keep its part in the deal.
--
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
in the kernel image header and it will likely
still boot just fine on that PC.
Ok, try this: take the disk out, remove/replace/modify the signature,
put the disk back in, and tell me what it is that fail to run.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America
On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 03:18:24PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*OR* inherits the default license of the project.
You got any case law for this? Seriously, I could use this for
FSFLA's
On Jun 15, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/15/07, Bernd Paysan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 13:49, Paulo Marques wrote
On Jun 15, 2007, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:20:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use
other people's improvements, cannot be taken without qualification.
No. Linus and other Linux kernels
On Jun 15, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:21:59PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
I produce egg yolk. I give it to you under terms that say if you
pass this on, you must do so in such a way that doesn't stop
On Jun 15, 2007, Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu 14 Jun 2007 13:46, Alexandre Oliva pondered:
On Jun 14, 2007, Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a person pretty familiar with the hardware in these types of
devices - this just isn't practical.
Well, then, ok: do all
be enough, understanding that the signature is a
functional portion and thus the corresponding sources must be
included.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED
to claim that GPLv3 does not represent their intentions.
It is not fair to claim that GPLv3 changes the spirit of 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
On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:04:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
No specific case law, but I'd expect serious [eventual] trouble for
somebody trying to slap some different license in such case.
Consider this (to make the freeing-the-lion
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:37:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 02:59:31 Jesper Juhl wrote:
it doesn't say anything about being able to run a compiled version
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're again confusing legal terms with the intent. The legal
terms provide an indication of the intent, but the preamble, along
with the free software definition it alludes to, do an even
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
://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/draft/gplv3-snowwhite discusses
each one of the significant changes (and some of the insignificant
ones) and shows why each one of them is more tit-for-tat than v2.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
.
Anyone who thinks the motivations of RMS and the FSF are not defending
users' freedoms, as defined in the Free Software Definition, hasn't
been around for very long.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:24:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Note that Stallmans motivation was *SOURCE* *CODE* *ACCESS* -
nothing else.
Not, it was to be able to modify
On Jun 15, 2007, Scott Preece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware
that copyright licenses are to be interpreted restrictively
(at least in Brazilian law). And IANAL ;-)
--
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
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware
On Jun 15, 2007, Scott Preece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FSF's approval of this distinction (ROM versus replaceable) places
the FSF's particular principles over users interests, for no
particular reason
Over *users* interest? How so
On Jun 15, 2007, Scott Preece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the terms, many courts
On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:28:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:25:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed component
as it should be to defend the freedoms of the user.
--
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 16, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:08, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If the Program does not specify a version number of this License,
you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
Distributing a copy of GPL
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Tivo has two choices: either it gives
users the content they want
On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
Linux kernel
How so?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
On Jun 16, 2007, Scott Preece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Scott Preece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make
this. If not, it might be
safer to state your intentions more explicitly, like Linus did.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Works for me ;-)
Best regards,
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
their system firmware to ROM however is interesting 8)
I'm not the FSF, and I don't
On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because it could easily be argued that they linked the BIOS with the
Linux kernel
How so?
Er
in the GPLv3 development, it saddens me when
people lie about it. I feel it's my moral obligation to set the
record straight. And that's what I've been trying to do.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
to themselves.
If these are not restrictions on the freedoms that the GPL is designed
to protect to ensure that Free Software remains Free for all its
users, I don't know what is.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red
that the license of
software *meant* to defend, for that software, even if some believe it
doesn't actually defend them.
--
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
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the case of renting a machine you can try to legislate new laws all
you want. It doesn't make a difference
On Jun 16, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How the hell does that improve the situation for users?
Maybe it doesn't. How does it make it worse?
Now not even the vendor
it worked this way for them. But this is
not what the GPL is *all* about. And GPLv3 shows the difference.
--
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
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
*modification* at all. What they have done
changes.
Then it's fair to enable the user to make changes as well, such that
they don't become dependent on the vendor, or even have their
1st-generation TiVo boxes left out in the cold for a while when the US
changes the DST rules again ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
they don't have more rights than users
TiVo doesn't have to install ROMs. It can use the same technical
measures it uses today, then throw away the keys.
Or give the user half of the signing key, or some such.
How bad would this be for them?
--
Alexandre Oliva http
manufacturer to decide whether they want to use distribute your
software along with the hardware or not.
Whether this would qualify as a Free Software license, and whether it
would be in the spirit of the GPL, is a separate issue.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF
is about showing that GPLv3, and anti-tivozation
in particular, don't violate the spirit of the defending users'
freedoms WRT the covered software, such that the Free Software remains
Free.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
There may be laws that require certification or limitations on the
user. Manufacturer giving up the ability to make modifications would
address this, or *perhaps* arranging
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people don't
*agree* on the spirit.
They don't have to.
Just like
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 June 2007 23:31:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But each of those arguments is based on a technicality.
They're based on the Free Software definition
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 00:19:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
There may be laws that require certification or limitations
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
four freedoms that the GPL was designed to respect and defend.
The GPL is a software license, *independent* of that thing
the outcome of GPLv3.
If you want your opinions to stand a chance to make a difference, the
right place to provide them is gplv3.fsf.org/comments, and time is
running short.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat
On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
No. You've
believe I have too. That we disagree doesn't mean any
of us is not being objective. It may mean we have different
backgrounds, we're talking past each other, we're not understanding
each other, and a number of other possibilities.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of hardware
On Jun 17, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if the manufacturer believes that it cannot legally allow software
modification, all the restriction does is force them either to make
the software unmodifiable (which advances freedom
101 - 200 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
