Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd

[Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>]

Alan,

The simple flaw is present and pointed out in my inital statement.

GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and
recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation.

What I find odd in you politics which stinks, is you and redhat are
pumping OSL into new features which are not generally submitted to the
standard base.  I do not care, but it does look funny.

Interesting points how the issues of holding the kernel to GPLv2 may
actually be a restriction to invalidate the actually license.  This tends
to make it possible for more arguements against the author when pursuing
violations.

Just a nickel to stir the pot.

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On 23 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 13:32, Martin Diehl wrote:
> > If the copyright holder puts a note on his code saying it is released 
> > under version 2 of the GPL then clearly neither the "or any later" nor the 
> > "not specified" cases apply. And I really fail to see how one could 
> > argue this were an additional restriction compared to GPL v2 literally!
> 
> If the copyright holder is not permitted to make such a restriction and
> use the existing code then yes.
> 
> > Btw, you aren't saying linux-kernel would *not* come with a valid GPL, 
> > according to linux/COPYING, are you?
> 
> The kernel is under GPL. I'm not sure what Linus scribblings make change
> if anything. I understand why Linus did it "I dont want the FSF doing 
> something silly" and also why the FSF did it "so we can fix the license".
> 
> Ultimately it makes little difference, Linus is perfectly entitled to
> refuse to add anything that doesn't allow GPLv2 use to his kernel tree.
> 
> GPLv2 only effectively means your code becomes non-free if a flaw is
> found in that GPL revision, and nobody can fix it for 70 years so its
> an awkward trade off
> 
> I suspect this is getting offtopic 8)
>