Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't see how you can claim - or even think - what you've written here
if you followed any of what I've posted or any of the linked material,
but this thread is a mess so I'll start over. This time please don't
delete stuff just because it disproves what you want to say.
This particular conversation started with you asking for a reference to
back up my long-held understanding that Linus did not intend for modules
to be derivative works of the kernel and I did with this 1995 Linus posting:
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/d5af1cc0012c3bec and
said:
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:
Again, he said no such thing. In fact, he argued explicitly that even if
it legally correct, it is morally wrong.
How can you say that after reading from the link:
"After all, the driver wasn't actually derived from linux
itself: it's a real driver in its own right, so I don't
feel that I have the moral right to force him to switch copyrights.
How much clearer can you be that it would be morally wrong to pretend
that a module is a derived work or to force a copyright change???
"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".
This is clearly talking about syscall interface and unrelated to the
kernel modules interface.
And you conveniently deleted the context that disproves this. From that
same link above quoting Linus directly:
"...just see module loading as "use" of the kernel, rather than
as linking against it."
Again, there is no room for misinterpretation. He clearly used this
description specifically to relate to the well known Linux license.
This wording was repeated in magazine interviews and was well understood
at the time.
"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?
The portion I quote is from a mail from Linus. He clearly says there is
no exception
I'm repeating what he said, and what he clearly meant in 1995 when I
(and many others) decided that Linux was going to become a viable
entity. If he hasn't stuck to his word since then, I can't help that.
There was plenty of time back when Linux still badly needed additional
driver support that he could have made different statements - but he didn't.
Read again,
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/COPYING-modules.txt
http://web.archive.org/web/20060202062935/people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules
FSF didn't give a direct interpretation of his quote and that cannot be
held more authoritative than the original copyright holders anyway.
Again, you removed my link to the interview in which Eben Moglen gives
his understanding slightly after the time in question.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf
It is a big pdf, so I'll quote the short and sweet relevant portion:
"I asked two prominent representatives of the Free Software
Foundation – Eben Moglen, general counsel, and Richard
Stallman, founder – to clarify thorny issues of linkage
to GPL code, and came up with two divergent opinions on
derivative works in specific contexts. Their responses
(to the question of whether or not they would consider
the following derivative works) are recorded below:
A driver loaded as a module into the Linux kernel?
Moglen: No"
That seems pretty direct to me. And the only interpretation possible
knowing Linus was publicly quoted as saying modules 'use' the kernel
services.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
