[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You kept saying nothing more than "we don't care about modifying them > > because nobody will ever want to", which is, well, simply false.
> Yet another strawman. What is false is your description of my arguments, > which were much more complex than this. You made many arguments, but that doesn't mean they answered the two specific questions: what freedoms, exactly, and why reduced ones for this particular class of software? > This was obvious from the context at the time I written that post, I > consider acceptable for a temporary SC exception having only > redistribution rights. Something that says "wait for the hardware to change" is not a "temporary exclusion". > > And nothing there explains why firmware should have less freedom, > I see some arguments there, so maybe you should take more than 30 > seconds to read the page. Or even better, look at the debian-devel and > debian-legal archives where you can find more arguments from me and > others. There were plenty of arguments, but they were nothing more than "we really need this hardware". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
