On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> *AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to >>> everyone - just to those that get the binaries. >> Exactly. Not even to the upstream distributor. That's where Linus' >> theory of tit-for-tat falls apart. > Nope. > case 1: Upstream provides source, tivo modifies and distributes it > (to their customers). > case 2: tivo provides source, end user modifies and distributes it > (possibly to their customers, maybe to friends, possibly even to > upstream). > See? Tit for tat. case 2': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes the hardware won't let him and gives up Where's the payback, or the payforward? And then, tit-for-tat is about equivalent retaliation, an eye for an eye. Where's the retaliation here? If GPLv2 were tit-for-tat, if someone invents artifices to prevent the user from making the changes the user wants on the software, wouldn't it be "equivalent retaliation" to prevent the perpetrator from making the changes it wants on the software? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - 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/
