I didn't articulate it very well, let me ask it a different way, if we =
adhere to the license (which we certainly will) are we then adhering to =
the spirit? Of course the true answer is not necessarily, and so I'll =
ask further: I'm not talking about loopholes here, I'll give a very =
simple example, a dual boot system. The reason I ask is that this =
discussion started with the fact that we simply designed the hardware to =
possibly accommodate DRM, and that alone seemed raise the ire of folks =
Of course we will adhere to the licenses, and the process will be open =
every step of the way so that any missteps, should they occur, will be =
caught early. My question again is more about the spirit, I'm not =
trying to be difficult, just to understand. =20
I guess in a nutshell, I'm not worried that we'll violate the GPL. It's =
a legal contract that is (at least reasonably) clear about what's =
allowed and not. I'm not trying to be lawyerly, just the opposite. I =
feel as if you have invited us into your home, and that the burden is on =
us to understand both the written and unwritten rules that your home is =
governed by (or as you suggest, we will turn off 95% of developers and =
what's the point).
Violating the spirit of freedoms is entirely more nebulous and requires =
more work to understand. It is out of the respect that you reference =
below that we are making such an effort to understand that spirit. I =
can promise you that we have as deep a respect for the unwritten rules =
as well as the written ones. With each discussion, we quietly take =
mental notes about all sorts of unwritten rules regarding forking or =
branching or whatever it might be.
Ironically, it's quite analogous to a conventional business negotiation, =
only in this case as much of the negotiation is done through discussion =
of understandings rather than the written word. For a variety of =
reasons (including the fact that we need the support of OS developers) =
we feel those understandings are as binding as the written rules. So =
please understand that is in that context that I am making an issue of =
all these things now.
From: Bj=F6rn Stenberg [mailto:bjorn@...
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:02 AM
To: Joe Born
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Neuros 442 Linux Main] Developer board spec 0.0.4 =
Joe Born wrote:
> I recognize that DRM is not a highly regarded concept in the OSS=20
> world, but outside of any licensing conflicts, where are the lines=20
If you have to exclude licensing, you have crossed the line already.
The line is very simple, and very absolute: Adhere to the license of all =
components, without looking for loopholes. The license represents the =
will of the author, and should be adhered to out of respect just as much =
as because the law says you must. If two licenses collide, you must =
choose different components.
As you've probably heard a thousand times already, free software is =
about freedom not price. The sole purpose of DRM is to restrict that =
freedom. They are the opposite of each other.
Mail was checked for spam by the Freeware Edition of No Spam Today! The =
Freeware Edition is free for personal and non-commercial use. You can =
remove this notice by purchasing a full license! To order or to find out =
more please visit: http://www.no-spam-today.com