From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265450AbTLHQu5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:50:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265446AbTLHQuC (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:50:02 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]:23451 "EHLO sccrmhc13.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265066AbTLHQrL (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:47:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:34:17 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Larry McVoy , Erik Andersen , Zwane Mwaikambo , Paul Adams Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Message-ID: <20031208163417.GA17670@pimlott.net> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Larry McVoy , Erik Andersen , Zwane Mwaikambo , Paul Adams References: <20031204235055.62846.qmail@web21503.mail.yahoo.com> <20031205004653.GA7385@codepoet.org> <20031205010349.GA9745@codepoet.org> <20031205012124.GB15799@work.bitmover.com> <20031206030037.GB28765@work.bitmover.com> <20031206141300.GA13372@pimlott.net> <20031206175041.GD28765@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031206175041.GD28765@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Andrew Pimlott Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:50:41AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:13:00AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > It might be true that Sun's misdeed perpetually voids their license > > to XYZ. > > That's a good question, it's not clear what the answer to that is. I reread > the GPL and I don't see where it spells out what happens if you try and cheat. FWIW, here's what RMS said: Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently forfeits the right to distribute the code at all. http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-05-001-21-OP-LF-KE > > Your comparisons to the SCO case are far-fetched. In part because > > of what I said above (your idea of "viral" is divorced from > > reality) > > In copyright law, yes. Contract law is a bit different. Linus and > you yanked me back into copyright law and you're right that SCO can't > claim rights to Linux, they don't own it. But isn't it true that if > the Unix license they have with IBM (actually more likely Sequent) is a > contract then that contract could extend to anything that was originally > written in the context of Unix, even if 100% of was written by Sequent > and removed from Unix and ported to Linux? I guess I can't disagree in principle that a contract could cross almost any boundary. But it seems vanishingly unlikely that anyone (not to speak of IBM) would agree to a contract with such boundary-piercing powers as SCO claims. For this reason, I don't think that even the most bold claims for the GPL's virulence help SCO one bit. On the contrary, any intelligent discussion of boundaries can only undermine SCO's nonsensical case. I agree with you about the importance of figuring out where the boundaries lie. I also wish the FSF would get more involved in this debate, but I have to say, they seem to be avoiding the hard questions, perhaps because they're afraid to say anything that will restrict them later. The best statement I think I've read from them is http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem which introduces an "arms length" standard. > And if it is, which I believe to be true, and if you wrote a new widget > that was originally done in the context of that program but now wanted > to put that widget someplace else and the widget removed all references > to the original program, do I still have any contractially based rights > to that widget? For me, this doesn't pass the giggle test. > Nothing in law is black and white, it's all sorted out in caselaw > typically. But as far as I can tell there has to be some way to limit > the influence of a contract or a license or otherwise everything that > ran on a GPLed kernel would be GPLed (the HURD is a GPLed kernel, right? > How much you want to bet that the FSF is not going to try and make the > claim that userland has to be GPLed?) They seem to have waived that claim, at least, by deeming system calls "arms length" communication. Andrew