Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd

From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Martin Diehl <lists@mdiehl.de>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>,
	"Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>,
	andersen@codepoet.org, jgarzik@pobox.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10307231222010.13376-100000@master.linux-ide.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1058987946.5516.117.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk>

So to truly understand your statements, it is a possible position of
RedHat to use and promote OSL over GPL?  If this is the case, where you
have an creedence in previous statements about GPL?  What it comes down to
is make the changes in module.h to make OSL products an code functional
with GPL and to hell with FSF.

There ablitity to freely impose restriction of compatablity is a
restriction in itself.  Thus can have the effect if invalidating all the
licenses issued to date as it relates to the kernel.  In effect making the
RTU/TOS non existant.

This does seem to raise the concern and a call for possible action to
adopt the superior license which protects and promotes the ideas if the
OSC and not the sole interest of FSF.

Thanks for the easy win point in the debate.

Clearly OSL has been deemed by RH as the license preferred to promote,
"achieves desired goals for free software" clause below.

The migration is simple, all it takes is enough key people to convert
their license for RTU to OSL and have a determine ruling from
OpenSource.org that GPL is compatible to operate in an OSL environment but
does not receive the benefits of OSL legal status and protection to the
author.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On 23 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 20:08, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and
> > recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation.
> 
> I don't think anyone says the GPL is a perfect license
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Red Hat is using OSL for various new projects based on the fact that
> lawyers and legal scholars think that the OSL is the better license to
> be using and that it achieves desired goals for free software. The
> kernel however is GPL and its kind of hard to change that. Certainly Red
> Hat can't do that. 
> 
> OSL wasn't around when the kernel began or my guess is Linus would have
> gone that way to avoid political baggage.
> 
> 