Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 5th Aug 2006 20:19 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
Thread beginning with comment 149701
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
Linus' point is that the market should decide to reject uber-restrictive devices, not a software license.
But those devices run GPLed software, where you can examine the source, but you can never run a modified version on that device. The code that is 'contributed back' might be useless anyway on another device. So it is a loophole that will take away some of your freedoms that the GPL is hoping to protect.