Re: General Discussion about GPLness

[Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw.ml@ithnet.com>]

Dear whoeveryouare,

can you please state in a clearer form (more understandable to non-native
english talkers) what your true opinion on the topic is?
And in case you did not understand what I was saying, here is clearer form of
my opinion:

A kernel module with another license (be it whatsoever) is _no_ modification
of the kernel, but an extension of its features. If feature-extension is
against the GPL (which I seriously doubt) then I would say "go back onto your
trees". Because the human race and evolution is about little else than
feature-extension.

And another thing: court is for lawyers. Whenever the lawyers take over
something they don't (want to) understand the end is near ...

How about talking with real names? I have no idea why you spam rms or bruce
with this, as the question is all about _one_ project, namely linux-kernel.
I'd suggest taking them off this topic again ...

--
Regards,
Stephan



On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:03:56 +0000
whywontyousue@waifu.club wrote:

> Dear Stephan von Krawczynski;
> 
> Universal City Studios Inc v Reimerdes, piece of shit.
> 
> "[The court] reasoned that Ferret consumers who used the Ferret as a 
> plug-in to the Real Player altered the Real Player user interface by 
> adding the Snap search button or replacing it with the Stream box search 
> engine button. The court concluded that the plaintiff raised sufficently 
> serious questions going to the merits of its claims to warrant an 
> injunction pending trial"
> 
> Want to violate the linux kernel copyright, you fucking piece of shit? 
> Yes you do. Yes modifying the running kernel with violating pieces is 
> copyright infringement, you fucking piece of shit. Yes you should be 
> sued. Just as Open Source Security (Grsecurity) should be sued for their 
> violations (of section 4 and 6 of the linux kernel copyright license 
> (they're also violating the GCC copyrights too)).
> 
> Will they be sued? Will you be sued? No: Linux copyright holders are 
> scared little wageslave worker bees. They aren't going to sue you; 
> sorry. Why are you even announcing you intent to violate the copyright? 
> Why even give these dogs such intellectual deference?
> 
> I wish OpenSourceSecurity would be sued. I wish you would be sued. But 
> linux WERKIN MAHN wage slave piece of shit idiots won't do it: I hate 
> them much more than I hate the violators. Complete Dogs. They could move 
> from strenght to strenght, from victory to victory; but they're scared 
> for their "JEHRB"s. I have to say: white men are pathetic scum. If Linux 
> was built by others there would rightfully be lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> > Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > you may have already heard about it or not (several times in the past),
> > non-kernel devices run into a symbol export problem as soon as 
> > something is
> > only exported GPL from the kernel.
> > Currently there is a discussion regarding zfs using this call chain:
> > 
> > vdev_bio_associate_blkg (zfs) -> blkg_tryget (kernel) -> 
> > percpu_ref_tryget
> > (kernel) -> rcu_read_unlock (kernel) -> __rcu_read_unlock (kernel)
> > 
> > where __rcu_read_[lock|unlock] is a GPL symbol now used by (not GPL 
> > exported)
> > percpu_ref_tryget.
> > 
> > That this popped up (again) made me think a bit more general about the 
> > issue.
> > And I do wonder if this rather ideologic problem is on the right track
> > currently. Because what the kernel tries to do with the export GPL 
> > symbol
> > stuff is to prevent any other licensed software from _using_ it in 
> > _runtime_.
> > It does not try to prevent use/copy of the source code inside another 
> > non-gpl
> > project.
> > And I do think that this is not the intention of GPL. If it were, then 
> > 100% of
> > all mobile phones on this planet are illegal. All of them use GPL 
> > software
> > from non-gpl software, be it kernel modules or apps - and I see no 
> > difference
> > in the two. The constructed difference between kernel mode software and
> > user-space software is pure ideology. Because during runtime everything 
> > is
> > just call-chained.
> > Which means if you fopen() a file in user-space it of course uses GPL 
> > symbols
> > down in the chain somewhere. The contents of the opened file are not
> > heaven-sent.
> > If you/we follow the current completely ideology-driven GPL strategy 
> > then I am
> > all for completely giving up this whole project. In real world you 
> > simply
> > cannot use such a piece of software. The success of linux during the 
> > last
> > years (i.e. decade) is not based on the pure GPL strategy, but on the
> > successful interaction between linux and non-GPL software.
> > Just think of the billions of smartphones all using a non-gpl firmware
> > (underneath, and there is no GPL version at all), the kernel (with 
> > non-gpl
> > modules) and apps (quite some of which are non-gpl).
> > This is only one prominent example, but there are lots of others.
> > In the end it all sums up to one simple question:
> > Can one _use_ GPL software during runtime as a base for own projects of 
> > any
> > license type or not? We are not talking about _copying_ gpl code, we 
> > are
> > talking about runtime use.
> > If runtime use is generally allowed, then the export gpl symbol stuff 
> > inside
> > the kernel code is nonsense. Because to use the kernel you must be 
> > allowed to
> > call it, no matter from where.
> > Hit me.
> > 
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Stephan