On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:05:13PM -0400, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> Richard Stallman is the creator of the license. It's his greatest work.
> Linus is in no way priviledged as to interpretation of it, other than
> tolerance on the part of the parties that own the copyright to the
> license.
Neither
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
> >standing to sue for license violation. [...] This means
> >that in order for them to lose, a court must rule that module linking
>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
standing to sue for license violation. [...] This means
that in order for them to lose, a court must rule that module linking
propagates
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:05:13PM -0400, Rick Hohensee wrote:
Richard Stallman is the creator of the license. It's his greatest work.
Linus is in no way priviledged as to interpretation of it, other than
tolerance on the part of the parties that own the copyright to the
license.
Neither is
On Thursday 21 June 2001 16:34, Craig Milo Rogers wrote:
> The in-core kernel image, including a dynamically-loaded
> driver, is clearly a derived work per copyright law. As above, the
> portion consisting only of the dynamically-loaded driver's binary code
> may or may not be a derived
On Thursday 21 June 2001 14:46, Timur Tabi wrote:
> 1. License the Linux kernel under a different license that is effectively
> the GPL but with additional text that clarifies the binary module issue.
> Unfortunately, this license cannot be called the GPL. Politically, this
> would probably be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Earlier today I was contacted by a principal at a well-known Linux
> company who was in a mild panic over recent arguments by Alan Cox and
> David Miller. This company (not VA or Red Hat, BTW) fears that their
> customers will run from Linux if they get the idea that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Earlier today I was contacted by a principal at a well-known Linux
company who was in a mild panic over recent arguments by Alan Cox and
David Miller. This company (not VA or Red Hat, BTW) fears that their
customers will run from Linux if they get the idea that
On Thursday 21 June 2001 14:46, Timur Tabi wrote:
1. License the Linux kernel under a different license that is effectively
the GPL but with additional text that clarifies the binary module issue.
Unfortunately, this license cannot be called the GPL. Politically, this
would probably be a
On Thursday 21 June 2001 16:34, Craig Milo Rogers wrote:
The in-core kernel image, including a dynamically-loaded
driver, is clearly a derived work per copyright law. As above, the
portion consisting only of the dynamically-loaded driver's binary code
may or may not be a derived work
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott)
>I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
>privileged with respect to interpretation of the license. I
Richard Stallman is the creator of the license. It's his greatest work.
Linus is in no way priviledged as to interpretation of it, other
> 1. Userland programs which request kernel services via normal system
^^
>calls *are not* to be considered derivative works of the kernel.
Please, at least don't say "normal" or it will be non obvious that it is
ok for the
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:30:06 -0400
> I'm not sure whether you are right or wrong--but such a conclusion
> would be grossly unfair. I think a strong case would be made that
> existing practice wrt Linux is independent of existing
>> 3. A kernel module loaded at runtime, after kernel build, *is not*
>> to be considered a derivative work.
>
> It doesn't much matter
> under the GPL, anyway, so long as the in-code kernel image isn't
> "copied or distributed".
Broadly agree - thanks for someone pointing out the obvious
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:05:34 -0400
> Sorry, I meant to say "chooser of the license". Given that Linux
> was never an FSF project, and that Linus editorializes at the top of
> COPYING, I think it is reasonable to infer that we are
> Pardon me, but what does "Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL" mean in the
> above 3)? (I'm asking to you since you seem to agree). Even if the
> database is found to be linked with a GPLed piece of SW, this doesn't make
> it (the database) GPLed, it just breaks Oracle's licence on the GPL SW.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
> Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:46:25 -0400
>
> > I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
> > privileged with respect to interpretation of the license.
>
> Ah,
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:46:25 -0400
> I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
> privileged with respect to interpretation of the license.
Ah, but Linus didn't create the license, he's using someone else's. The GPL
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:13:22PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> > > makes him privileged in this respect.
>
IANAL. I also dislike fencepost errors. Hence, these
comments.
The GNU GPL Version 2, June 1991, (hereafter the GPL), applies
"to the modified work as a whole". Consequently:
>2. A driver or other kernel component which is statically linked to
> the kernel *is* to be
** Reply to message from Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21 Jun 2001
22:12:35 +0200 (CEST)
> They only have to recompile their program against non-GPLed code (e.g.
> rewrite that part from scratch) and redistribute it.
That assumes that a non-GPL equivalent even exists, or can be
** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21 Jun
2001 16:13:22 -0400
> Linus *is*, however, implicitly claiming the authority to make license
> policy on behalf of the other copyright holders in cases where the GPL
> is unclear.
And that could be dangerous to "GPL
Eric S. Raymond writes:
> All I have done is propose that he be more explicit about his
> policy in order to prevent needless confusion and nervousness.
Amen.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>
> At 8:06 PM +0100 2001-06-21, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
> >> What is the difference between including kernel header file and
> >> including GPLed header file?
> >
> >There are real differences between programs and
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
> > 2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this case to
> >be GPL'd header files.
> > 3) Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL.
> >
> > There's not a court in
Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> > makes him privileged in this respect.
>
> Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
>
Your analogy is flawed.
You state that "the kernel is the equivalent of an application", when
compared to user-space application/library relationships.
The flaw in this analogy is, a library does 'require! and use'
routines provided by the application. The library provides methods
and services
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> makes him privileged in this respect.
Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
stated that decentralizing the copyright of Linux
At 8:06 PM +0100 2001-06-21, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
>> What is the difference between including kernel header file and
>> including GPLed header file?
>
>There are real differences between programs and interface definitions. At this
>point you get
- Received message begins Here -
>
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> >
> > The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> > Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and
> IANAL, and this may be a dumb question, but what about LGPLing the driver
> abstraction layer and/or headers? (Presuming of course there -is- a driver
GPL + LGPL gives you GPL so it doesnt help. You can combine it with the driver
or with the kernel but not with both together.
-
To
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox did have cause to say:
> An application is clearly not a derivative work in the general case, and they
> are linked with glibc which is LGPL and gives the users the choice and right
> to run non-free apps.
IANAL, and this may be a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Timur Tabi wrote:
> In my opinion, this whole thing would just go away (including some of
> Microsoft's anti-GPL rants), if the FSF officially declared that under the GPL,
> #including a GPL header file does NOT force your code to be also GPL.
The problem being, there is
> 1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
> 2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this case to
>be GPL'd header files.
> 3) Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL.
>
> There's not a court in the civilised world that would uphold the GPL in
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
> > >standing to sue for license violation. Therefore, when he says
>
> He's copyright holder of parts of it. The FSF is also a copyright holder of
> oddments, as are many people.
IANAL,
** Reply to message from Mike Harrold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21 Jun 2001
15:04:21 -0400 (EDT)
> Not to mention utterly unenforceable. Consider:
>
> 1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
> 2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this
> To be honest, I disagree that #include'ing a GPL header file should force your
> app to be GPL as well. That may be how the license reads, but I think it's a
> very bad idea. I could write 1 million lines of original code, but if someone
> told me that but simply adding #include my code is
> > the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
> What is the difference between including kernel header file and
> including GPLed header file?
There are real differences between programs and interface definitions. At this
point you get into law and the like and its probably best you read
** Reply to message from Wei Weng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 21 Jun 2001 16:01:58
-0400
> Hell, why does the linux community need to care about other *greedy*
> people who don't want to GPL their work anyway? If you want to protect
> GPL as the principle in Linux, well, screw the device driver
On 21 Jun 2001 13:46:48 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21
> Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
>
>
> > To calm down the lawyers, I as the principal kernel maintainer and
> > anthology copyright holder on the code am therefore adding the
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:39:13AM -0700, Jeff Golds wrote:
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> >
> > The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> > Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me
** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21
Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
> To calm down the lawyers, I as the principal kernel maintainer and
> anthology copyright holder on the code am therefore adding the
> following interpretations to the kernel license:
>
> 1.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
>
> The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and others who
> actually wrote it.
>
> The GPL license requires that
> >As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
> >standing to sue for license violation. Therefore, when he says
He's copyright holder of parts of it. The FSF is also a copyright holder of
oddments, as are many people.
> >"binary modules are OK", he is stating a
As you know, there's been another flap recently about the GPL status
of loadable kernel modules. You have a note that touches on this in
the kernel COPYING file, but it is not sufficient to resolve the
questions that keep coming up.
Earlier today I was contacted by a principal at a well-known
As you know, there's been another flap recently about the GPL status
of loadable kernel modules. You have a note that touches on this in
the kernel COPYING file, but it is not sufficient to resolve the
questions that keep coming up.
Earlier today I was contacted by a principal at a well-known
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and others who
actually wrote it.
The GPL license requires that
** Reply to message from Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 21
Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
To calm down the lawyers, I as the principal kernel maintainer and
anthology copyright holder on the code am therefore adding the
following interpretations to the kernel license:
1. Userland
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:39:13AM -0700, Jeff Golds wrote:
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and others
On 21 Jun 2001 13:46:48 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
** Reply to message from Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 21
Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
To calm down the lawyers, I as the principal kernel maintainer and
anthology copyright holder on the code am therefore adding the
following
** Reply to message from Mike Harrold [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 21 Jun 2001
15:04:21 -0400 (EDT)
Not to mention utterly unenforceable. Consider:
1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this case to
To be honest, I disagree that #include'ing a GPL header file should force your
app to be GPL as well. That may be how the license reads, but I think it's a
very bad idea. I could write 1 million lines of original code, but if someone
told me that but simply adding #include stdio.h my code
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Timur Tabi wrote:
In my opinion, this whole thing would just go away (including some of
Microsoft's anti-GPL rants), if the FSF officially declared that under the GPL,
#including a GPL header file does NOT force your code to be also GPL.
The problem being, there is no
- Received message begins Here -
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and others who
At 8:06 PM +0100 2001-06-21, Alan Cox wrote:
the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
What is the difference between including kernel header file and
including GPLed header file?
There are real differences between programs and interface definitions. At this
point you get into law
Your analogy is flawed.
You state that the kernel is the equivalent of an application, when
compared to user-space application/library relationships.
The flaw in this analogy is, a library does 'require! and use'
routines provided by the application. The library provides methods
and services TO
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
At 8:06 PM +0100 2001-06-21, Alan Cox wrote:
the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
What is the difference between including kernel header file and
including GPLed header file?
There are real differences between programs and interface definitions.
** Reply to message from Marco Colombo [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 21 Jun 2001
22:12:35 +0200 (CEST)
They only have to recompile their program against non-GPLed code (e.g.
rewrite that part from scratch) and redistribute it.
That assumes that a non-GPL equivalent even exists, or can be written
** Reply to message from Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 21 Jun
2001 16:13:22 -0400
Linus *is*, however, implicitly claiming the authority to make license
policy on behalf of the other copyright holders in cases where the GPL
is unclear.
And that could be dangerous to GPL purists,
IANAL. I also dislike fencepost errors. Hence, these
comments.
The GNU GPL Version 2, June 1991, (hereafter the GPL), applies
to the modified work as a whole. Consequently:
2. A driver or other kernel component which is statically linked to
the kernel *is* to be considered
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:46:25 -0400
I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
privileged with respect to interpretation of the license.
Ah, but Linus didn't create the license, he's using someone else's. The GPL is
a
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:46:25 -0400
I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
privileged with respect to interpretation of the license.
Ah, but Linus
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:05:34 -0400
Sorry, I meant to say chooser of the license. Given that Linux
was never an FSF project, and that Linus editorializes at the top of
COPYING, I think it is reasonable to infer that we are talking
3. A kernel module loaded at runtime, after kernel build, *is not*
to be considered a derivative work.
It doesn't much matter
under the GPL, anyway, so long as the in-code kernel image isn't
copied or distributed.
Broadly agree - thanks for someone pointing out the obvious
here. Perhaps
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:30:06 -0400
I'm not sure whether you are right or wrong--but such a conclusion
would be grossly unfair. I think a strong case would be made that
existing practice wrt Linux is independent of existing practice
1. Userland programs which request kernel services via normal system
^^
calls *are not* to be considered derivative works of the kernel.
Please, at least don't say normal or it will be non obvious that it is
ok for the vsyscalls
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott)
I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
privileged with respect to interpretation of the license. I
Richard Stallman is the creator of the license. It's his greatest work.
Linus is in no way priviledged as to interpretation of it, other than
As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
standing to sue for license violation. Therefore, when he says
He's copyright holder of parts of it. The FSF is also a copyright holder of
oddments, as are many people.
binary modules are OK, he is stating a policy
Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
makes him privileged in this respect.
Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
stated that
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this case to
be GPL'd header files.
3) Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL.
There's not a court in the civilised
Eric S. Raymond writes:
All I have done is propose that he be more explicit about his
policy in order to prevent needless confusion and nervousness.
Amen.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
makes him privileged in this respect.
Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
stated that decentralizing the copyright of Linux was
1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this case to
be GPL'd header files.
3) Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL.
There's not a court in the civilised world that would uphold the GPL in that
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
standing to sue for license violation. Therefore, when he says
He's copyright holder of parts of it. The FSF is also a copyright holder of
oddments, as are many people.
IANAL, but I
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox did have cause to say:
An application is clearly not a derivative work in the general case, and they
are linked with glibc which is LGPL and gives the users the choice and right
to run non-free apps.
IANAL, and this may be a dumb
IANAL, and this may be a dumb question, but what about LGPLing the driver
abstraction layer and/or headers? (Presuming of course there -is- a driver
GPL + LGPL gives you GPL so it doesnt help. You can combine it with the driver
or with the kernel but not with both together.
-
To unsubscribe
the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
What is the difference between including kernel header file and
including GPLed header file?
There are real differences between programs and interface definitions. At this
point you get into law and the like and its probably best you read up on
Pardon me, but what does Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL mean in the
above 3)? (I'm asking to you since you seem to agree). Even if the
database is found to be linked with a GPLed piece of SW, this doesn't make
it (the database) GPLed, it just breaks Oracle's licence on the GPL SW.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:13:22PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
makes him privileged in this respect.
79 matches
Mail list logo
