From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932607AbYBHTIc (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:08:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758828AbYBHTIU (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:08:20 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:35123 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758730AbYBHTIS (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:08:18 -0500 Message-ID: <47ACA8A5.9010807@davidnewall.com> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:38:21 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Holtmann CC: Greg KH , Christer Weinigel , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only References: <20080125180232.GA4613@kroah.com> <20080202123710.42df1aa0@weinigel.se> <20080202191930.GA19826@kroah.com> <47A5D9CD.5070001@davidnewall.com> <84144f020802030743j1278ac64j2ee3e2cbc5c3fefc@mail.gmail.com> <47A5E67D.9040804@davidnewall.com> <84144f020802030848v160253feoa24c5ecefc7c91f5@mail.gmail.com> <1202240590.15090.119.camel@violet> <47AB0A76.3000404@davidnewall.com> <1202411113.15090.263.camel@violet> <47ABD317.5060805@davidnewall.com> <1202462101.15090.300.camel@violet> <47ACA204.7030702@davidnewall.com> In-Reply-To: <47ACA204.7030702@davidnewall.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I explained something poorly: > Now, Alan has made a big issue over numerous legal opinions he has > received, but he's been completely coy in the details. The point I wanted to make is that a few people have said that lawyers say that kernel modules are derivative, but I only remember Alan saying that he had actually spoken with the lawyers. Therefore I infer that this somewhat widely held opinion originates from him. My point was to those people who have been taking him at his word, and was to point out that there are more reliable and transparent sources. Don't take his word on it. Take the words of real experts in the law, because instead of a mere four word conclusion, they explain everything.