From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:12:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:12:30 -0400 Received: from matrix2.enst.fr ([137.194.2.14]:13044 "HELO smtp2.enst.fr") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:12:22 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:11:26 +0200 From: Fabrice Gautier To: "Eric S. Raymond" Subject: Re: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200106211814.f5LIEgK04880@snark.thyrsus.com> In-Reply-To: <200106211814.f5LIEgK04880@snark.thyrsus.com> Message-Id: <20010623220115.3698.GAUTIER@email.enst.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.00.06 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400 "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > > > >As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with > >standing to sue for license violation. [...] This means > >that in order for them to lose, a court must rule that module linking > >propagates derivative-work status *and* Linus must reverse himself and > >sue. I always thought that, Linus was not the sole copyright holder on the linux kernel. Hence, didn't think hat he is not the only person to be able to sue. Could not "kernel hacker x" sue if indeed some part of his work was used in (what he assumes to be) non GPL compliant derivative work ? Scenario: hacker X write ethernet driver for card made by constructor Y. Constructor Y provide binary module to exploit super capability of their card. Could hacker X sue company Y ? (well more interresting could be to replace hacker X by company X) -- Fabrice Gautier