On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
It's just a very simple case in which an enclosure is being used to
disrespect the terms of something enclosed in it.
It's meant to show that the argument that "it's a software license, it
can't affect the hardware" is nonsense.
It's not meant to show whether TiVO is right or wrong. This would
depend on agreement that the GPL requirements are similar to the
requirements of the egg yolk manufacturer.
I thought we'd already cleared up the issue about ROMs, and why
they're different. Do I have to quote it again? Must I allude to
"passing on the rights" every time I mention "imposing further
restrictions"? :-(
--
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}
-