Alexander Terekhov wrote:


Since when has he felt like that. Last time I remembered, the kernel 
people (including Linus) were real big on being the superior software
Gods. Isn't that why we can't have binary modules loaded into the 
kernel to support hardware? One recent example would be the following:

And that whole fiasco.

< Forward Inline >

To: Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

One more nail in EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL coffin...

On 1/30/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see
> > >EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception
> > >to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere
> > While proprietary kernel modules are tolerated, there is no special
> > exception to the GPL, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is just a technological measure
> > used to make GPL violations more evident and subject to the DMCA.
> What violations? And what does DMCA has to do with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> and "tainting" idiocy which has the only purpose to impede
> interoperability with non-GPL'd code?
> Anyone can patch the kernel to get rid of that silliness completely or
> reexport what's required in a non-GPL<->GPL support module.
> That's not to mention straight "GPL\0sucks" workaround.
> The GNUtians among kernel developers simply never heard of Sega v
> Accolade. "Genesis III searches the game program for four bytes of
> data consisting of the letters "S-E-G-A" (the "TMSS initialization
> code")..."

And more recent Lexmark v. Static Control.

"In view of our conclusion regarding the Printer Engine Program, we
can dispose quickly of
Lexmark's DMCA claim regarding the Toner Loading Program."

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to