| |||||||||||||
4 points4 pointsPosted Oct 6, 2006 9:26 UTC (Fri) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)In reply to: 4 points by coriordan Parent article: Similar in spirit?
There is nothing in GPLv3 to "make binaries in ROM's modifiable", I don't know where you're getting that from.You are misrepresenting what i said. If you read my comment, i was talking about the language in the GPLv2, which language someone else suggested means that "the right to tweak" was somehow embedded in it. When Linus and i adopted the GPLv2, the GPLv3 draft and the term "right to tweak" did not exist yet, and i resist revisionist interpretation of the GPLv2 license. Please re-read my ROM point with that in mind, and consider that i'm interpreting the GPLv2 license: The "receive" stands for distribution, "change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs" means the exclusive right for modification and derivation. No-one in their right mind, neither i nor Linus ever understood that plain langugage to mean: "you have to allow to make binaries in ROM's modifiable". IMO that interpretation is often just wishful, revisionist thinking, possibly created by "oh what should we do about this DRM thing" thoughts. Thanks.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||