Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That is bullshit/lies/cheating (pick one). It should be worded: > > "We are not willing to support his hardware just because we (at least > some of us) decided to demonstrate how can we can strike against the > non-freeness of the hardware development assets (which has ever been > there but we don't care). And you are the lab rats for our experiment > but in our reality, the hardware manufacturers are the ones to be > blame!!!1"
Should we same the same thing if we are asked to include a non-free documentation reader for a proprietary documentation format? In other words, the question remains: why should we have a different rule for firmware and not other things? >> Why do we insist on the source for openoffice.org or emacs? Is it >> just mindless? No. It's for good and worthy reasons. You need to >> explain why those reasons somehow don't apply in the case of firmware. > > Because it does not RUN on anything inside of our scope (host machine). > You try to extend it by cheating but IMHO most people will refuse to > support that. "Our scope"? Where is that written? Why should the freeness of something depend on whether it is a "host machine"? If something is outside our scope, then why are we distributing software for it at all? I'm happy to say we have a limited scope, but you seem to want it to be both within and without our scope. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
