Sorry folks, forgot one thing. http://www.fsf.org/photos/rms-sign.jpg
Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > 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
