On Jun 15, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 15/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING* >> > any fscking thing.
>> 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 > So? The user still has the source and is free to use that in other > GPLv2 projects, that's the point. This point of yours is a distraction from the argument in this sub-thread. These cases were Chris Friesen's attempt to show that GPLv2 was tit-for-tat, and case 2'' shows it isn't, at least not in the sense he tried to picture it: On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> 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. -- 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/
