Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jul 1998 15:25:43 -0700 (PDT) | From | "Jon M. Taylor" <> | Subject | Re: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing |
| |
On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Actually, this is already happing today, whenever dynamic > > linking is used to load a propietary application and load it on > > a GPLed operating system or whenever a propietary operating > > system loads GPLed code. > > Only if they dont have direct dependancies. There is precedent > here of sorts although it never went to court. Please review > the Objective C and NeXT incident in detail
I have spent half an hour looking for this and I can't find anything. Could you provide a URL or describe it yourself?
Also, in the course of my searches I naturally looked at www.gnu.org. They have *nothing* there at all dealing with past or present situations where the GPL has had conflicting interpretations and how those situations were resolved. Pretty important stuff, no? Might be useful for people with the same sorts of proplems to be able to consult past precedents, mightn't it? One wonders if they are reluctant to admit that there has ever *been* any conflicts over conflicting interpretations of the GPL, or even that such conflicts are a possibility.
> > you from providing a mechanism (a script for example) that > > enables the user to do this linkage without requiring him to > > know about what he is doing. And you may even provide such a > > The law is actually not as dumb as you imply.
The law has not yet had a chance to give an opinion on this one way or the other yet.
> Your script for > example is a linking mechanism and you are providing it linked
By whose definition of "linking"? Yours? Why does your opinion (or mine, or anyone else's) mean anything?
> > Or look at what happened with Be: They may have infected part of > > their system with GPLed code, but since that system is a highly > > modular microkernel, this infection is not really relevant, > > since the infected component is extremely self-contained. On the > > > other hand, it's disclosure is of almost no value to the Open > > Source community without disclosure of the noninfected rest of > > the operating system. > > Be had a few problems actually, they had to correct their illegal > use of GPL code and sort things out appropriately.
Their "correction" involved providing the source to those GPLed drivers with their OS distribution. Nothing else.
Jon
--- 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.' - Scientist G. Richard Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |