From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264855AbTLEXQq (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:16:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264867AbTLEXQq (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:16:46 -0500 Received: from bm-1a.paradise.net.nz ([202.0.58.20]:49054 "EHLO linda-1.paradise.net.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264855AbTLEXQj (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:16:39 -0500 Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:16:51 +1300 From: Oliver Hunt Subject: Re: In-reply-to: To: gmack@innerfire.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <3FD111E3.8010606@student.canterbury.ac.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3 References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org No its not, doing something similar to (or identical) to a GPL'd program is fine, if you were to use a GPL'd IRC server/client as the base for your own code, then you'd need to pblish using the GPL... IRC would be in the realm of software patents really - it's a protocol - the client/serverside code comes under copyright laws :) --Oliver gmack@innerfire.net wrote: >>From gmack@innerfire.net Fri Dec 5 12:36:11 2003 >Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) > by localhost with SMTP; 5 Dec 2003 17:36:11 -0000 >Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:36:11 -0500 (EST) >From: Gerhard Mack >To: Linus Torvalds >cc: David Schwartz , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, > Peter Chubb , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? >In-Reply-To: >Message-ID: >References: > >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-104.5 required=4.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.20 >X-Spam-Level: > >Those views are scary when you consider that webmaster Inc sells closed >source software that works exactly like IRC (wich is GPL) > >On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >>Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:58:09 -0800 (PST) >>From: Linus Torvalds >>To: David Schwartz >>Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Peter Chubb , >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? >> >> >> >>On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David Schwartz wrote: >> >> >>>The GPL gives you the unrestricted right to *use* the original work. >>>This implicitly includes the right to peform any step necessary to use >>>the work. >>> >>> >>No it doesn't. >> >>Your logic is fundamentally flawed, and/or your reading skills are >>deficient. >> >>The GPL expressly states that the license does not restrict the act of >>"running the Program" in any way, and yes, in that sense you may "use" the >>program in whatever way you want. >> >>But that "use" is clearly limited to running the resultant program. It >>very much does NOT say that you can "use the header files in any way you >>want, including building non-GPL'd programs with them". >> >>In fact, it very much says the reverse. If you use the source code to >>build a new program, the GPL _explicitly_ says that that new program has >>to be GPL'd too. >> >> >> >>>Please tell me how you use a kernel header file, other than by including >>>it in a code file, compiling that code file, and executing the result. >>> >>> >>You are a weasel, and you are trying to make the world look the way you >>want it to, rather than the way it _is_. >> >>You use the word "use" in a sense that is not compatible with the GPL. You >>claim that the GPL says that you can "use the program any way you want", >>but that is simply not accurate or even _close_ to accurate. Go back and >>read the GPL again. It says: >> >> "The act of running the Program is not restricted" >> >>and it very much does NOT say >> >> "The act of using parts of the source code of the Program is not >> restricted" >> >>In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any >>other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd >>program. >> >>What you _do_ have the right is to _run_ the kernel any way you please >>(this is the part you would like to redefine as "use the source code", >>but that definition simply isn't allowed by the license, however much you >>protest to the contrary). >> >>So you can run the kernel and create non-GPL'd programs while running it >>to your hearts content. You can use it to control a nuclear submarine, and >>that's totally outside the scope of the license (but if you do, please >>note that the license does not imply any kind of warranty or similar). >> >>BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES. >> >>Comprende? >> >> Linus >>- >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >> >> >> > >-- >Gerhard Mack > >gmack@innerfire.net > ><>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing. >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > >