Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 22:37 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> David,
> 
> If you still have not paid and gotten legal advise on the position, you 
> are still talking out of your ARSE. Clearly you have horses and wishes
> confused on what GPL is and is not.

> If there is not boundary for modules then SCO will eat Linux alive in
> court.  You can't have it both ways.

Andre, while I thank you for your well-written and coherent statement in
opposition to my own position, I'm sure you'll agree that it doesn't
matter what orifice I use if I stick to merely quoting...

        These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
        identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
        Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
        separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,
        do not apply to those sections WHEN YOU DISTRIBUTE THEM AS
        SEPARATE WORKS. BUT WHEN YOU DISTRIBUTE THE SAME SECTIONS AS
        PART OF A WHOLE WHICH IS A WORK BASED ON THE PROGRAM, THE
        DISTRIBUTION OF THE WHOLE MUST BE ON THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE,
        whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
        whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
        it.
        
        Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
        contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
        intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
        derivative OR COLLECTIVE works based on the Program.
        

-- 
dwmw2