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 existThis statement was repeated in other contextsSo 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.
No, I'm saying that Linus knew exactly what he meant every time he said modules "use" the kernel services instead of linking with it, and he chose that wording because he also knew exactly what his license said about things that "use" the kernel services. This was his only story in 1995 - well published, not contradicted.
- that's just what googlepopped 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
If you don't believe my direct quote where he plainly says that modules are not derivatives and Eben Moglen's observation of that reality, I don't know what else to say. You asked why I believe what I do. That's what I read in 1995. That's what I believed to be true. I still believe they are true.
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."
I don't want to believe that the 1995 statements were lies.
* 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.
What? If something isn't a derivative work, the copyright of the thing it isn't derived from has no bearing.
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.
On the contrary, the whole point of the GPL and its 'work-as-a-whole' clause was to be incompatible with every other license. It is by design and the lie is to claim otherwise. Please show how something can include any GPL-covered work, yet be distributed under different terms if you insist on claiming that.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
