On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:26:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
In *YOUR* opinion and by *YOUR* definition of the term. Yes, I have seen some
evidence that TiVO hasn't made some of the modifications they made public -
doesn't mean that they won't, just it hasn't *YET* been done. (Not that I'm
so omniscient I can say, definitively, whether they will or won't - or even
that they haven't done it already).
By my own definition replacement != modification.
The same as I would with a TiVO. I have the right to copy, modify, distribute
and run the code - even if I can't do any of those things on the hardware the
original binary operates on.
Simple: I don't buy it. Each and every piece of hardware I buy has a rather
laborious research process before I actually spend the money on it. This
makes it a certainty that I can use the hardware in the manner I want without
problems like your hypothetical.
Whats worse - forcing your morals and ideals on someone or giving them the
same freedom of choice you had?
Before you answer remember that that is *EXACTLY* what is being done with
GPLv3. With GPLv2 and prior there was a simple guarantee that
every "Licensee" had exactly the same rights. With GPLv3 you are forcing your
ethics and morals on people - and isn't this exactly what the Roman Catholic
church did during the Spanish Inquisition?
Bzzt! Wrong! The reason is that it wasn't necessary - at all. It still isn't,
but a group that feels modification == replacement wants it to be, so it has
suddenly become necessary. (Note that anti-DRM stuff *IS* good - DRM is part
of an attempt by failing business models to stop the failure)
Ah, but I never said I had a GPLv1 program. If GPLv1 is still valid and
available I should be able to find a copy of it *RIGHT* *NOW* to license a
new project if I want to use GPLv1 as its license. So your logic is again
flawed.
Yes, they do. It isn't a right they have as "copyright holders" - in fact, it
isn't a part of their rights under the copyright at all. It's a part of their
rights as the owners of the network.
Never claimed it was less obscure, just that you've usually got a board-room
filled with middle-aged men that might have problems agreeing that it is a
clear-cut case.
Yes, but the fact that it would cost money to get the suit dropped is a
problem.
Doesn't matter what the author intended it to mean - at all. What matters is
how its interpreted when/if it shows up in court. This can be seen *ALL* the
time with laws across the globe. In the US there is this thing called
the "RICO" Laws- "Racketeering Influenced Criminal Organization" - that give
the government the ability to seize anything that is deemed a "profit of drug
sales" or of a "Criminal Organization". It has been used for that purpose,
but its interpretation has caused it to be used to seize money that has had
no source in either.
Artificial distinctions in the law
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
