David Kastrup wrote: [...] > Completely irrelevant to your previous line of reasoning which you > snipped out again. Really, your smokescreen and quote birdshot > weazeling is most tiresome. You can't cure a wrong argument by
What "wrong argument" are you talking about? Your fellow GNUtian ams' non sequitur regarding "work"? Oh. It reminds me of Moglen's "a work"... http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/ ----- LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see proprietary modules as an infringement? Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the license if it's pure GPL. ----- Any comments, dak? regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
