Les Mikesell wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
"...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
This statement was repeated in other contexts
So you now accept that the context that you brought to this list does
not support your argument that Linus claimed that binary modules are not
derived work in a blanket fashion. That's good.
- that's just what google
popped up first. Do you really believe that Linus himself did not
understand exactly the context that this wording applied to? He said it
specifically to clarify any doubt about the matter.
He understands very well. I am still waiting on on a specific mail that
supports your claim. Mine is here
http://web.archive.org/web/20060202062935/people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules
"I claim that a "binary linux kernel module" is a derived work of the
kernel, and thus has to come with sources."
* He is not the only copyright holder and others have expressed even
more strongly their beliefs that modules are derivative work.
That's kind of irrelevant to the fact that they may not be.
Copyright 101. Intention of the copyright holders are very very relevant.
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.
There is no twisting involved to point out that the 'work-as-a-whole'
clause of the GPL forces exactly its own terms on all components. If
you don't like to talk about that, so be it.
You claimed
"Deliberate? _Everything_ that is not the GPL is incompatible with the GPL."
This is a clear lie. There is no excuse for it.
Rahul
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
