From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263791AbTJETYk (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 15:24:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263793AbTJETYj (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 15:24:39 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:28178 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263791AbTJETYg (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 15:24:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:21:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: David Woodhouse cc: Rob Landley , "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] In-Reply-To: <1065378470.3157.146.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David, It is about the fact that Linus on his own set a position that modules are permitted. Now if you want to take the position that one can not modify and redistribute the modified kernel in source, you are imposing a restriction. One is free to add or subtract content and redistribute. Combine this with the position that modules are permitted regardless and there is no copyright issue. If I wanted to be rude, I could take the changes I made and copyright the combined work and make it so others could not use that version without permission. This is exactly what the large distributions do with their product. Surprized, don't be it is all a stupid game of no you can't and yes I can. So when should I expect your letter ? How will you phrase the content given "freed_symbols" will be GPL ? How will you attack any vendor using it ? As the author of the GPL code, I will show that I can still pull a bow string. If I use it for whatever reason or combine it into any kernel I distribute as source where are your issues? You have none. This is all a game of who is peeing in whose soup. Neither you or I can do anything, provide the vendor who is using Linux publishes their source fork. I also dare you to stop them, because you can't. Cheers, and keep up the joust! Andre Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 23:40 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > You are so young and fresh to the game, it is cute. > > > > http://www.gcom.com/home/support/whitepapers/linux-gnu-license.html > > That's quite amusingly erroneous. The idea that you could use the Linux > kernel having stripped out all code belonging to Alan so that his > opinion is not relevant is one that I find frankly hilarious. > > This is not about your work just being a derived work of Alan's under > copyright law. This is about you not complying to the licence under > which Alan's code is released and hence it is _his_ code, including I > believe a significant part of the networking code, which is an > 'infringing copy of a copyright work' in law; since you use it without > licence. > > -- > dwmw2 > >