where in the draft?

Posted Sep 23, 2006 3:00 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by tglx
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

What part of the draft requires CPU designs from Intel?

Such statements are the reason that the gplv3.fsf.org requires people to attached their comments to a specific sentence.

to post comments

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 23, 2006 15:52 UTC (Sat) by tglx (subscriber, #31301) [Link] (4 responses)

I said:

"Where do you draw the line ? Is Intel obligated to hand you out their CPU design, just because the CPUs are able to run your code ? "

I nowhere said that the GPLv3 draft is requiring this. I was pointing out in which direction this might go, if you are thinking beyond the rim of the TIVOed hardware.

tglx

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 1:59 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, if your scenario was hypothetical, you've nothing to worry about since nobody has suggested going that far in that direction.

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 23:53 UTC (Sun) by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624) [Link] (2 responses)

Not yet, anyway...

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 25, 2006 5:45 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] (1 responses)

> Not yet, anyway...

If and when the FSF is in a position to go that far (in the draft of the
GPLv9, say) ... then it will have secured not only software freedom but
also design freedom. Onward and upwards!

where in the draft?

Posted Sep 25, 2006 14:55 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

And they'll still be claiming "Oh, these chages are completely in the spirit of GPLv2..", which they'll be able to do, of course, because "in the spirit of" has no legal meaning or clear definition...