On Jun 21, 2007, david@lang.hm wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, david@lang.hm 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?

quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> 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   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/