From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 14:20:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 14:20:18 -0400 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]:23054 "EHLO smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 14:20:17 -0400 Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 20:20:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel To: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com cc: David Woodhouse , Larry McVoy , "Albert D. Cahalan" , Linus Torvalds , Wolfgang Denk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] In-Reply-To: <20020526105506.A20002@hq.fsmlabs.com> 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 Hi, On Sun, 26 May 2002 yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > If you are using purely GPL software or some other non-commercial software > then you don't need a lawyer. If you are using standard Linux software > that does not make use of the method, you don't need a a lawyer. If you > are developing commercial RT software that does make use of the method, then > there is no generic and simple rule, just as there is no generic and simple > rule for what is "derived work" and what is "simple aggregation". If you still don't want to explain what "use of the Patented Process" means, you should better remove that license and just say that every use of the patent in any form has to be licensed individually. That would be far more honest. As the license stands now it's more cause for confusion than helpful. Everyone likes bitching about the FSF, but at least they clerly explain what they mean. If yoy can't do that, don't mention the GPL in your license. Your are only using it as an excuse to call your license "open". bye, Roman