From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:31:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:31:27 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:25363 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:31:15 -0400 Subject: Re: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic To: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:30:02 +0100 (BST) Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200106211814.f5LIEgK04880@snark.thyrsus.com> from "Eric S. Raymond" at Jun 21, 2001 02:14:42 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with > >standing to sue for license violation. Therefore, when he says He's copyright holder of parts of it. The FSF is also a copyright holder of oddments, as are many people. > >"binary modules are OK", he is stating a policy intention which your > >customers may include in their evaluation of legal risk. 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. Right. I'm not planning to go and harass people (well not unless they start it) but it is important that people are aware of the potential issue and they make sure they understand it. Its no different to being sure you understand exactly which grandparents and/or limbs you signed away when you joined MSDN 8) Alan