Re: article on GPLv3, Linux kernel, and Devices Rigged to Malfunction

 Ter, 2006-10-24 às 14:27 +0100, Alex Hudson escreveu:
> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 13:36 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > Alex Hudson <home-tAc6DklvUjjSUeElwK9/Pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > I don't think anyone can sensibly argue
> > > that the requirement to publicise a shared secret code/key is not a term
> > > primarily concerned with post-violation compliance.
> > 
> > I'd say it's primarily concerned with pre-distribution decision making.
> > 
> > "Shall we tivoise?  Oh, looks like we can't."
> 
> It's a nice idea, but I don't buy it :)  "Shall we distribute source?
> Oh, looks like we can't", if you see what I mean.

Actually I don't see.
Those that tried and were found moved to compliance (either by stopping
or by following the terms of the license).

RUi

signature.asc
Description: Esta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E9?= uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente