On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING* > any fscking thing.
Ok, lemme try again: case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and gives up > On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:45:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> 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/
