From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263971AbTLOVTY (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:19:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264095AbTLOVTY (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:19:24 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:3085 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263971AbTLOVTX (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:19:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:12:46 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Adam Sampson cc: 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 I quit ... all of you win. Just remember, had OSL been in place IBM would not need to exercise patents against SCO. Caldera and Canopy Group would be liable for their own pollution of the code stream. Next OSl provides a means to recover legal fees for the author, and GPL does not. So unless you have a FAT WALLET, you can not defend you works. Oh yeah, just give all your copyright works to FSF and they will defend it and get any of the finacial rewards and you get ZERO! Later ... Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Adam Sampson wrote: > Andre Hedrick writes: > > > OSL 1 and 2 are a preferred choice as they are slowly creaping into > > the kernel. > > The problem with the OSL is that it requires mirror sites to get > anybody downloading OSL-licensed software from them to explicitly > agree to the license; this is simply not practical, and the result is > that it is not feasible to freely mirror OSL-licensed software. This > hasn't been fixed with OSL 2, and as such it would be an exceptionally > poor choice for any piece of software that you want to be widely > distributed, which certainly includes Linux. > > -- > Adam Sampson >