Joined: July 2006
||Posted: April 15 2008,04:26
Well, indirect debate if you prefer that (semantics and interpretation of a language again, neh?). I see your point about ndiswrapper, since I don't think there are any open source windows drivers of those sorts (or is there - I guess it's different from how Firefox allows the Flash plugin...). Since I am neither an expert in law, licenses, etc. I wouldn't know the "correct" way. It's probably a "gray area" for most
|Quote (lucky13 @ April 14 2008,23:12)|
|I was just pointing out that you can't really use that to justify your argument about including flash/Opera.|
Didn't realize I was "arguing" for that, especially since I wrote that further modularization helps remove objections either way because it puts all those decisions in the hands of end users instead of developers. When one chooses to use Flash, Opera, or ndiswrapper, one is ultimately choosing to use closed source. The only difference between the three is ndiswrapper is a tool for allowing the use of something *else* that's closed source. If there's any ethical problem with Opera or Flash, it should also apply to anything else that's related to closed source -- directly or indirectly. Obviously, though, it doesn't.