On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
My arguments are based on the intent behind the license, its spirit.
You keep falling back to legal technicalities, that have zero to do
with the interpretation of the intent.
That's why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
Maybe modification is not the best word, because it carries a lot of
legal background from copyright law.
How about adaptation. From freedom #1, freedom to study the software
and adapt it to your needs. Do you see how tivoization imposes an
artificial restriction to this freedom?
This is still true. This is not about the hardware. This is about
the software, and how the user is stopped from adapting it to her own
needs, while the vendor saves this prerogative to itself.
So, if you visit www.fsfla.org, I 0w|\| your computer?
If you join a bit torrent, I can replace the operating system on your
computer?
Sorry, I don't buy that. You're leaving something out of this
picture, and that's probably quite important.
Huh? Are you implying that the Free Software foundation wrote this
meaning "zero cost"?
Because they're disrespecting others' freedoms. Freedoms aren't
absolute. One's freedom ends where another's freedom starts.
Tivoization exceeds the hardware manufacturer's freedoms and
disrespects users' freedoms and disrespect some author's ethical
intent.
--
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}
-