Gora Mohanty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [about me saying that Linus needs to ensure GPL compatible code]
> Huh? How so? You are now making a claim that has not been voiced so > far, namely that this is somehow in violation of the GPL. Linus is committed to GPL V2 for the kernel. So he is obliged to fix code that violates that compatibility. He absolutely has every right to not bother getting involved in the debate on what a GPL violation actually is - but he is obliged to stick with GPL for kernel releases. Gora Mohanty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Admittedly > without having looked into the details of any of this, I find this > hard to believe. At the least, there would be much more of a stink > about this, and if it were true, vehement opposition would indeed > be in order. You and me understand the issues around software freedom better than most people. The issue here isn't that obvious. If we don't see it as obvious, then how do you expect there to be much of a stink about it in general? I think it is a GPL violation since a decent coder can't figure out how to modify the disputed code that is distributed with the kernel, unlike the original coder. So there is no way you can say it is a preferred form of source in the GPL sense for the developer the code was distributed to. > My objection was not > to the initial alert, but to the implication that it was somehow incumbent > on the quote community unquote to take up cudgels on this issue. I agree with your objection. (Though I am neutral on Niyam's sensationalizing technique. That looks like an ends vs means issue to me). > > so it looks like the kernel releases > > will be healthier than ever as a result of this. So the whole issue > > is IMO very > > Nietzschean in the sense of "if it doesn't kill you > > it makes you stronger". > > I fail to understand how this gels with the rest of your message. I > personally read it as the equivalent of "oh well, at least the > smallpox blankets that we handed out did not kill so many people > after all". Your comparison is non-germ-ane. Poor joke aside, I can't see how your analogy is applicable. My point was: in the end people are not locked in as much with the improved (= getting stronger) kernel as the GPL incompatible parts are removed. Eg: they are not doomed when a device manufacturer "upgrades" the code for newer hardware and the code turns out to be incompatible with the older hardware. PJ _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22-24, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
