lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]
From
Date
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 00:10:27 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:

> Nope, you made threats.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Erik Andersen wrote:
> I'll go even farther, and say that one might call the GPL_ONLY
> symbols an "effective technological measure" that "effectively
> controls access to a work" and "effectively protects a right of a

to which you replied:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:40:52 -0700, Andre Hedrick said:
> Go have your "DADDY" write another legal letter for you and send it my
> way. I will be happy to shove it down your pie hole.

Erik postulates a "one MIGHT" legal argument, and gets threatened with bodily
harm? I think you've given up any moral high ground regarding threats.

You may want to just take a few days off - you're apparently not attached to
the same reality as the rest of us:

> If one reads ./include/linux/module.h
>
> It clearly states any license is acceptable.

Maybe if you apply the Bible Code to it, it's clearly stated, but all I see is
a reference that the MODULE_LICENSE macro will accept a parameter of
"Proprietary", and then goes on to say "it's there so the module in question
can be treated properly - just like a Jew in Warsaw in 1941 had to wear a star".

There. I said it. The esteemed Mr Godwin says we're now free to get on with our lives.


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.221 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site