From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263862AbTJEURL (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:17:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263864AbTJEURL (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:17:11 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:30738 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263862AbTJEURE (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:17:04 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:14:35 -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: <1065384197.3129.4.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> 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 On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 12:21 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > David, > > > > It is about the fact that Linus on his own set a position that modules are > > permitted. > > It is indeed. And about that fact that by the time he made that > declaration, he was not in a position to make it unilaterally. Regardless, nobody stopped him at that time and thus a right of way has been granted and can not be revoked. > > > 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. > > A restriction in this case which I assert was present in the original > licence; not an 'additional restriction'. See above, the boss changed the rules and nobody challanged it. It sticks like glue and we all have to suck up the point and move forward. > If I wanted to distribute my code without restrictions, I'd have > contributed to a BSD kernel, or released my code under the terms > "GPL but not if you really really don't fancy it". > > I don't. I didn't. > > > 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. > > Not without being in violation of the original licence. This isn't about > the resulting combined work, but about your permission to use the > _original_. > > > 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. > > Believe me, there are ways this can be achieved. Sure, and I am out there proving the points that will undermine your arguements. Whatever happened to "World Domination" according to TUX ? Whatever happened to 'having a choice' ? Lets assume you are correct, and the effect is a "Tar Baby". Your claims that anything which loads into a kernel is automatically a derived work. Thus the effect of an original work loading into a gpl work force the original work to be GPL. This is a joke and will never see a second in any court. Cheers, Andre For those who do not know about history and english archers, go read.