On Mar 25, 2008, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:21:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> I'm running the kernels I posted on my main home server and at the >> laptop from which I'm typing this message. A single counter-example >> should be enough to disprove this statement, but I got two. > For which you are no more free. Your firmware just happens to be burned > into the box so you cannot change it. There's a fundamental ethical difference that I've already explained but you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, let alone understand. This is where I stop taking part in arguing this point with you. > You work on compilers. What is the FSF position on free software for > non free interpreters ? Now tell me how this relates to say CPU microcode. > Tell me why the FSF GPL excluded libraries normally shipped with the OS for > dependancies that must be shipped > Tell me why the FSF made the GPL permit free software that could only be used > on a non free OS. Err... Ask the FSF? I'm not related with it, I'm not a member thereof. Now, let me guess: 1. Free Software for non-Free interpreters is acceptable: someone could create a Free interpreter and then anyone could use both in freedom. 2. because without the exclusion it would have been impossible to distribute these Free programs in binary form in the first place, before some completely Free operating system started. And then, there's always a possibility that someone writes a drop-in replacement library that would enable the binary to be used in freedom. 3. Same as 1, really. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
