On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:14:49AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Give. Me. A. Break.
Section 6 is inherently broken. It tries to gerrymander the "bad"
cases and ends up with a huge mess. Definition of user device is
arbitrary and reeks with discrimination against the field of use.
Trying to be more explicit about installation instructions walks
straight into a minefield:
* is it enough to give some installation methods? If so,
should they be as cheap as the rest? As efficient as the rest in
some sense? Representative in some sense? The same as what
manufacturer ever uses?
* if all installation methods should be given, where does
one stop? Should one describe unsupported ones? All of them?
Is that a violation of license to omit some? How does one prove
that omission hadn't been malicious violation in face of complaint?
Trying to be explicit enough to get a rope on the TiVo neck ends
up with not just clumsy rules; it opens a can of worms worse than
what we have in matching part of v2.
It looks like trying to be tight enough to be sure to catch the cases FSF
doesn't like and trying to avoid getting the stuff that really shouldn't
be caught. And looks like these requirements conflict.
So in the end you get an ugliness that satisfies neither those who think
that TiVo case is not a problem nor those who agree that it is a problem
and consider v2 sufficient in that area.
And BTW, you've been told just that about an hour before you've sent that
mail. I don't mind repeating that on l-k, but please don't pretend to be
unaware of the problems in that area. I've no idea which problems Linus
has with that turd, but there's certainly enough in there.
-
