Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
----- "Frans Pop" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> 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
email@example.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315