From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263883AbTLJSjZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:39:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263596AbTLJSjZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:39:25 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:35339 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263883AbTLJSjQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:39:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:33:16 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Linus Torvalds cc: Maciej Zenczykowski , David Schwartz , Jason Kingsland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Okay, If I am wrong I can step up and freely admit it. :-) If nothing else I got one point for getting you to point out you like OSL which I do also. So given RMS and company state OSL and GPL are not compatable, how does the two exist in the current kernel? Earlier, iirc, there were comments about dual license conflicts. I was actually trying to show how silly David's arguement was about imposing bogus rules and taking it to the logical ends of insanity. It is lonely out here, I need more people to go over the edge on the bobsled too. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group PS: I am not attached to the the flame war any more, I just enjoy the warmth of the heat :-0 On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > > Lets have some fun now and play this game. > > Sorry, you need to learn the rules before you can play. > > > As principle author of the "taskfile transport", any an all operations > > using, storing, execution, transfering, copying, opening ... anything > > may not operate with non-source-published binary modules. > > That's against the GPL, and you can't modify the terms of the license. At > most, you personally can say that you will not sue even when the license > isn't followed - you can tell people that as far as _you_ are concerned, > you can losen the license further, and that actually puts a legal onus on > _you_ but nobody else. > > But while you have the right to say "I will not sue over this" and the GPL > doesn't care one whit, you can _not_ say "I have my own list of additional > requirements that would trigger copyright infringement". > > > So everyone one with/sells a PVR, NAS, SAN, Laptop, Workstation, Server > > which uses IDE/ATA/SATA is forbidden to operate unless written terms of > > use are set forward. > > "The act of running the Program is not restricted" according to the GPL, > and "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' > exercise of the rights granted herein." > > So basically you _cannot_ take rights away outside the ones the GPL > requires (which boil down to the requirement of having source available). > > > We can kill Linux in minutes, shall we? > > Trust me, when you said that the GPL is badly written, you have no clue > what you're talking about. It's a very solid license, and your rants about > it have no basis in fact. I personally actually like the OSL slightly > better in the way it was written (see opensource.org), but your arguments > against the GPL are just fundamentally wrong. > > Linus >