Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:25:41 -0800 (PST) | From | Andre Hedrick <> | Subject | Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules |
| |
On 20 Nov 2002, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le mer 20/11/2002 à 09:12, Mark Mielke a écrit : > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:06:39AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, David McIlwraith wrote: > > > > How should it? The compiler (specifically, the C preprocessor) includes > > > > the code, thus it is not the AUTHOR violating the GPL. > > > If the compiler includes a .h file, it happens because > > > the programmer told it to do so, using a #include. > > > > I was recently re-reading the GPL and I came to the following conclusion: > > > > The GPL is only an issue if the software is *distributed* with GPL > > software. Meaning -- it is not legal to distribute a linux kernel that > > Yeah, that's precisely the problem here: the binary-only module is > distributed with included spinlock code, which *is* GPL.
So if it bugs you so much, why doing you start the process to sue all the places everyone know the violation exist? First go for the major ones lin the embedded space. So where is you lawyer and you fat pile of cash to run you war against the use of Linux in Business?
Now lets wreck the one decent video driver that happens to be closed source.
Can we as REDMOND ?
Later!
Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |