Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible | Date | Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:53:11 -0400 |
| |
On Jun 17, 2004, at 16:51, Flavio Stanchina wrote: > Your argument applies to the SCO case because their code (if there is > any, which nobody but SCO still believes is the case) did *not* have a > license attached to it that didn't allow modification, redistribution > or whatever else the GPL requires; otherwise they wouldn't have > trouble demonstrating which code it is they're talking about. So any > sane person would understand that they knowingly released it under the > GPL: if they'll try to argue that they didn't know the kernel was > covered by the GPL, I don't think the judge will go for much less than > capital punishment when he stops laughing.
I wasn't discussing those particular firmware files. I definitely agree that they must get out of the kernel immediately. I was discussing a different piece of code someone was suing over, sorry for the confusion.
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
- 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/
| |