From: Joe B. <jb...@ne...> - 2005-09-26 15:42:28
|
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 = immediately. 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. Joe -----Original Message----- From: Bj=F6rn Stenberg [mailto:bj...@ha...]=20 Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:02 AM To: Joe Born Cc: Neu...@li... Subject: Re: Fwd: [Neuros 442 Linux Main] Developer board spec 0.0.4 = released 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 > drawn? 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. --=20 Bj=F6rn ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 |