On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:21:20 +0000 David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If they fail to do that under the 'honour system' then I'm not averse to > 'enforcing' it by technical measures. (For some value of 'enforcement' > which is easy for them to patch out if their lawyers are _really_ sure > they'll win when I sue them, that is.) There are specific rules against removal of technical measures *even if the result is legal*. It is an offence in many countries thanks to the RIAA lobbyists and their corrupt pet politicians to remove technical measures applied to a -public domain- work. So your argument doesn't fly. > Not on my part. The thing that makes me _particularly_ vehement about > binary-only crap this week is a very much a technical issue -- in > particular, the fact that we had to do post-production board > modifications to shoot our wireless chip in the head when it goes AWOL, > because the code for it wasn't available to us. Consider it an education process. Hopefully the contracts for the chips/docs were watertight enough you can sue the offending supplier for the total cost of the rework. If not then you are really complaining about getting contract negotiations wrong. > It's better to have a coherent approach, and for all of us to do it on > roughly the same timescale. Getting the distributions do so this is > going to be like herding cats -- having it upstream and letting it > trickle down is a much better approach, I think. I doubt any distribution but the FSF "purified" Debian (the one that has no firmware so doesn't work) would do it. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
