On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:

quoted text
> 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

quoted text
> 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   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/