On 2/25/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Next, the presence of the binary blobs, if they're actually needed,
> preclued this work from being compatible with the GPL.
Sez who?
The last I heard Moglen "freed" blobs. The Prof in GNU Law declared
them to be fully resistant to the
On 2/25/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> exist. Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
> GPL context looks slightly absurd.
Slightly?!
-
The authentication sequence, it is true, may well block one form of
"access"—the "ability to . . . make use of"
On 2/25/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 24, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
> That your change is a deliberate DMCA violation ("circumvention of
> technological measures").
http://www.eff.org
HACK_MODULE_INFO(LICENSE, GPL, "The licensing of this module is *NOT* \
GPL-Nazis' business. Oh and BTW, the GPL it is not... notwithstanding \
the presence of the string of data consisting of the letters 'G-P-L'. \
Inquiring Minds: see Sega v. Accolade and Lexmark v. Static Control.");
regards,
a
4 matches
Mail list logo
