From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262266AbVC2Mcr (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:32:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262277AbVC2Mcr (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:32:47 -0500 Received: from simmts12.bellnexxia.net ([206.47.199.141]:52436 "EHLO simmts12-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262266AbVC2McP (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:32:15 -0500 Message-ID: <2534.10.10.10.24.1112099348.squirrel@linux1> In-Reply-To: References: <200503280154.j2S1s9e6009981@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <1112011441.27381.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1112016850.6003.13.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1112018265.27381.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050328154338.753f27e3.pj@engr.sgi.com> <1112055671.3691.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1112059642.3691.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:29:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!. From: "Sean" To: linux-os@analogic.com Cc: "Steven Rostedt" , "Kyle Moffett" , floam@sh.nu, "LKML" , arjan@infradead.org, "Paul Jackson" , gilbertd@treblig.org, vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl, bunk@stusta.de User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, March 29, 2005 7:15 am, linux-os said: > In the United States there is something called "restraint of trade". > Suppose there was a long-time facility or API that got replaced > with one that was highly restrictive. To use the new facility, one > would have to buy a license or kiss somebody or something that > was not previously required. If an action was brought against the > person(s) who replaced the old facility with the new one, it > is likely that the plaintiff would prevail. > > If there is documented proof that those symbols were previously > available and then they were changed to something more restrictive, > I think one would prevail if a complaint were brought in court. > > If course, you need to convince the person(s) who changed them > that the action was unconscionable and therefore force them to > change them back without making money for the lawyers by suing > them. And, yes, somebody who modifies software in that manner > can be sued. They could also be charged with criminal behavior > (malicious mischief) in the State of Massachusetts or charged > under federal law with restraint of trade. Modifying an existing > policy to further an individual's ambitions can be fraught > with consequences. > What the hell is this world coming to? Can we please just respect the intent of the GPL and dispense with all this legalese crap; at least here on LKML? People who want a free ride and don't care about returning anything to the community that created Linux have many other forums in which to vent. Regards, Sean