Respectfully, your answer makes no sense.
Respectfully, your answer makes no sense.
Posted Sep 28, 2006 14:55 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #19270)In reply to: Respectfully, your answer makes no sense. by hummassa
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)
I respectfully disagree. To me, freedom 1 is about the program, not about any particular device. I take it on its face: the freedom to run the program, for any purpose. It does not say "the freedom to run the program as part of a particular device."
To me [YMMV], there's a lot of satisfaction in knowing my code is in a particular device, even if I can't change it. That satisfaction is, for me, part of the trade for my effort in creating the code.
Sure, I would prefer a modifiable device, but if that's not an option, I'd rather have a non-modifiable device with my code in it than a non-modifiable device with somebody else's. For some kinds of devices, modifiable is simply not an option.
Posted Sep 28, 2006 15:21 UTC (Thu)
by alexbk (subscriber, #37839)
[Link]
So you'd be satisfied even if your own code would be used to lessen the freedom of coding that you enjoy? I can't agree with that. If you have and use a freedom, you should also protect it.Respectfully, your answer makes no sense.