On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:08:28 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 3/9/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Intel should be able to sell easily-reprogrammable WiFi cards: if > > *I* modify one card and exceed regulatory limits, I should be seen > > as the *sole* responsible. > > While I agree that this isn't an excuse for not freeing it, it's *NOT* > whether Intel is responsible, it's that they don't want you doing it > anyway.
That is my point: if they want to forbid some possible modifications (just because those modifications would break some law) by retaining source code and/or by license restrictions, they have a non-free goal! The only reasonable justification I can think of is "we would be considered responsible if you made those modifications", but that justification would mean that the law is ill-conceived and should be changed ASAP, as I stated. > > ie. A crowbar can be used to break in to a house. I can give you one > and not be responsible if you break into a house, but maybe I don't > want you to anyway, so I won't give you one. What if I need the crowbar for legitimate uses (maybe I locked myself out of my own garage door...)? Denying me the crowbar would forbid me those legitimate uses too. Hope this clarifies what I mean. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpdpT0NuS0SJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
