[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification

----- "Frans Pop" <elendil@planet.nl> wrote:

> Ean, with all due respect, but I find your contributions to this 
> discussion way below par as apparently you can't even be bothered to read 
> the proposals under discussion.
> We are NOT discussing a blanket waiver of all DFSG or SC criteria for 
> firmware. The only criterium that is considered for being waived in any 
> practical sense is the one that requires source to be available for the 
> firmware.
> So, given that we are just for example extremely unlikely to have the 
> right to redistribute Windows Mobile, the answer to your question is a 
> clear and totally undisputed by anyone NO. I would guess that including 
> Windows Mobile would also violate several other of our principles that 
> are not under discussion. So please take your pick.
> Now that that's been cleared up, can you please either keep your fingers 
> off the keyboard for the remainder of this discussion period, or else
> start contributing to the discussion in an intelligent fashion? We 
> already know what your position on the issue is, so there's really no
> need to keep repeating it (the same goes for some others BTW).

I'm sorry, but I am dense. Please help me understand. If I have a Microsoft device and they provide an opensource Linux installer which ships a Windows Mobile based firmware then how would this not meet your distribution criteria? When considering Silverlight(tm) development tools this use case is not even far-fetched.

I made the mistake in my earlier message of saying "main". I should have said "sourceless". In either case, the firmware in question could be distributed as part of our standard install images.

Which part am I getting wrong?

Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
ean@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315

Reply to: