From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271210AbTGWTEt (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:04:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271226AbTGWTDx (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:03:53 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:59154 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271210AbTGWTC2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:02:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:08:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: Alan Cox cc: Martin Diehl , Adrian Bunk , "Adam J. Richter" , andersen@codepoet.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd In-Reply-To: <1058965063.5516.41.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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) >