[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without >> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"? >> > >> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment >> >won't work if we ignore the issue. > >On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can >> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this >> theory? > >So you say that I was talking about pretending? Which part of what I >wrote justifies this interpretation? > You wrote "the latter case forces us to not ignore [non-free software running on a system]". To me, this implies that in the other cases you deliberately choose to ignore it.
-- ciao, Marco
