On 3/10/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Yes, I think they probably do have a non-free goal in keeping the
source code; however while there are legit uses for source I think
they would assume a lot of people would do illegal modifications.
Anyway this isn't sufficient justification - petition Intel like crazy
and maybe they will release the source :) People can modify their Wifi
equipment to go over the legal limits pretty easily anyway...
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary) ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure)
http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
http://linux.org.au http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
