From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264379AbTLKHcj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:32:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264376AbTLKHcj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:32:39 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140]:21996 "EHLO grelber.thyrsus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264398AbTLKHbk (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:31:40 -0500 From: Rob Landley Reply-To: rob@landley.net To: Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:32:06 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Larry McVoy , Andre Hedrick , Arjan van de Ven , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031210163425.GF6896@work.bitmover.com> In-Reply-To: <20031210163425.GF6896@work.bitmover.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312110132.06286.rob@landley.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 10 December 2003 10:34, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:21:52AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > There's a fundamental difference between "plugins" and "kernel modules": > > intent. > > Which is? How is it that you can spend a page of text saying a judge > doesn't care about technicalities and then base the rest of your argument > on the distinction between a "plugin" and a "kernel module"? Because there are distinctions that aren't technicalities? Strange but true... Rob (I'm driving 55 MPH on the freeway. I'm driving 55 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. I'm driving 55 MPH through the middle of a crowded shopping mall... Same action, same tools, three different contexts. One is legal, one gets you a ticket, one gets you serious jail time. The law's full of this sort of thing...)