Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Does this direct quote from 1995 help your memory problem?
Claiming that I have memory problems after you have been misstating the
case for a long time without any references is quite rich. The below
quote or mail nowhere has a blanket statement saying binary modules are
not derivative works as you claim.
I don't see how anyone can forget that he plainly wrote that demanding
that modules be GPL'd is both legally and morally wrong. Or have any
question about the meaning of this portion of the Linux license:
"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use
kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered
normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading
of "derived work".
in context with:
"... just see module loading as "use" of the
kernel, rather than as linking against it."
Maybe there's been a bait-and-switch ploy since then, but it was clearly
understood by the FSF legal counsel and everyone else at the time
although RMS argued the point (of course). See the top of page 16 here:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf (sorry, can't
find a nicer format).
Hence his exception to the GPL permitting use of the kernel interfaces.
I have told you before that there is no such exception and I quote from
the first link:
"Well, there really is no exception.
So his own quote, and the FSF legal counsel's understanding of the terms
as he stated them were both wrong?
You were told about the problems earlier on too and you choose to ignore
it. CDDL was deliberately designed to be incompatible with GPL
Deliberate? _Everything_ that is not the GPL is incompatible with the GPL.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
