Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 22:53:49 > +0200: > > > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >Karen Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700: > > >> >What is wrong with this? Commands like make have evolved considerably > >> >since 1972. However, inside the GNU make info page you can read this: > >> > > >> > GNU `make' conforms to section 6.2 of `IEEE Standard 1003.2-1992' > >> > (POSIX.2). > > >> Do you believe all false claims? > > > Alan believes that taking two separate and independent computer program > > works (separate and independent under copyright law, according to the > > AFC test) and combining them together in a compilation (see 17 USC 101) > > creates a "derived work" (see the GNU Copyleft Act) akin to "embryo > > which is derived from the egg and sperm." I gather that he also > > believes that linking is akin to sex without condoms (and that it is > > not oral or anal). > > HaHaHaHa! Is this really the best you can manage, Alex?
I'd just like to add that Alan's beliefs are inspired by maniac Moglen's beliefs. Eben calls it "interpenetration". Uh, maniac. 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. ----- Oh, BTW, I find it kind of exciting that FSF's own director and lead counsel in fact (and "in all good faith") doesn't really understand the licensing terms relevant to the use of Linux! http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html <quote> One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel, where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one might be the use of a network driver that relies on proprietary firmware that is loaded from an operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called "blobs," are strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating system kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.) Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. </quote> http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/ ----- Eben: The kernel also maintains a technical mechanism, namely the GPL-only symbols and tainting structure, which seems to suggest an API for the connection of non-GPL'ed code to the kernel, which also seems to me a strong indication of the presence of an exception. The difficulty as a lawyer, even a lawyer that is reasonably knowledgeable about these matters, is that I don't understand what the terms of that exception are. So, say I want to audit a system, say an embedded product, in which I find non-GPL loadable kernel modules present, how do I know whether that fits within an exception which is legitimately available to third parties and when it is not? [...] So then there are parties in the world who think they are in legal trouble on one side with the regulators if they do release source code for loadable kernel modules that drive their software- controlled radios, and they don't know if they're in legal trouble on the other side if they don't release source code. For those parties, in particular, it would be very helpful if the kernel developers had decided to formalize the nature of their exceptions, and the Free Software Foundation and I have made a few attempts to discuss that matter with kernel developers. I had conversations with Ted Ts'o, I talked to Linus about it and I understood there were some reluctances to clarify, in a full and complete way, what was going on. There may have even been disagreements among kernel developers about that, I wouldn't know. But I continue to think that it would be useful, for a whole variety of people who are trying in good faith to do the very best they can, and who may be navigating some dodgy legal territory, for them to be able to refer to something beyond the COPYING file which -- with all due respect -- I think probably doesn't contain all the terms that are relevant to the use of the kernel. ----- regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
