[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?


    If I am wrong I can step up and freely admit it. :-)

    If nothing else I got one point for getting you to point out you like OSL
    which I do also.

    So given RMS and company state OSL and GPL are not compatable, how does
    the two exist in the current kernel? Earlier, iirc, there were comments
    about dual license conflicts.

    I was actually trying to show how silly David's arguement was about
    imposing bogus rules and taking it to the logical ends of insanity. It is
    lonely out here, I need more people to go over the edge on the
    bobsled too.


    Andre Hedrick
    LAD Storage Consulting Group

    PS: I am not attached to the the flame war any more, I just enjoy the
    warmth of the heat :-0

    On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
    > >
    > > Lets have some fun now and play this game.
    > Sorry, you need to learn the rules before you can play.
    > > As principle author of the "taskfile transport", any an all operations
    > > using, storing, execution, transfering, copying, opening ... anything
    > > may not operate with non-source-published binary modules.
    > That's against the GPL, and you can't modify the terms of the license. At
    > most, you personally can say that you will not sue even when the license
    > isn't followed - you can tell people that as far as _you_ are concerned,
    > you can losen the license further, and that actually puts a legal onus on
    > _you_ but nobody else.
    > But while you have the right to say "I will not sue over this" and the GPL
    > doesn't care one whit, you can _not_ say "I have my own list of additional
    > requirements that would trigger copyright infringement".
    > > So everyone one with/sells a PVR, NAS, SAN, Laptop, Workstation, Server
    > > which uses IDE/ATA/SATA is forbidden to operate unless written terms of
    > > use are set forward.
    > "The act of running the Program is not restricted" according to the GPL,
    > and "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
    > exercise of the rights granted herein."
    > So basically you _cannot_ take rights away outside the ones the GPL
    > requires (which boil down to the requirement of having source available).
    > > We can kill Linux in minutes, shall we?
    > Trust me, when you said that the GPL is badly written, you have no clue
    > what you're talking about. It's a very solid license, and your rants about
    > it have no basis in fact. I personally actually like the OSL slightly
    > better in the way it was written (see, but your arguments
    > against the GPL are just fundamentally wrong.
    > Linus

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.044 / U:22.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site