On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who >>> disagree with you. >> >> For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't >> understand why people who disagree with this stance chose GPLv2. >> Isn't "no further restrictions" clear enough?
> everyone else is reading this as 'no further license restrictions' I didn't see anyone else add "license" where you did. "No further restrictions on the rights granted herein" is very powerful and extensive, and that's how it was meant to be. > not no hardware restrictions' becouse GPLv2 explicitly says that it > has nothing to do with running the software, only with distributing > it. It also says that running the software is not restricted, and since copyright law in the US doesn't regulate execution, receiving the software does grant the recipient the right to run the software. So the distributor can't impose restrictions on it. -- 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/
