Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Les Mikesell wrote:
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???

You are taking a specific case of AFS and trying to generalise it. Sorry I am not buying that. Neither will anyone seeing the other in numerous statements made by Linus I have referred to. A direct quote from Linus that explains this

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

"Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem
module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray area.

Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to tell the AFS guys so.

Does that mean that any kernel module is automatically not a derived work? HELL NO!"

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, you are taking two different statements and trying to collapse them together to give it a context that does not exist

That seems pretty direct to me. And the only interpretation possible knowing Linus was publicly quoted as saying modules 'use' the kernel services.

Like I said, you can repeat this all you want. The facts of the matter remains,

* Linus has repeated claimed that the copyright of derivative works depends on the specific instance

* He is not the only copyright holder and others have expressed even more strongly their beliefs that modules are derivative work.

* FSF is not the copyright holder and their views are not relevant to a discussion about the Linux kernel

* Historically, the interface between modules and the kernel were weaker and one could get away with this argument but that case is much harder to make today.

You have clearly been shown to twist facts to the extend of claiming that no license other than GPL is compatible with itself and I am not willing to argue with you anymore about this. Good luck with your trolling.

Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux