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:

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.

You have yet to show other instances where he said this. The only instance you showed was just in the context of the AFS module and not a generic claim. You are well aware of that now.

"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.

Setting aside that you have not proved your original claim, you also now prefer to ignore statements that disprove yours. Reminds me of a ostrich burying it's head in the sand.

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 haven't show it isn't derived work. Don't try to win an argument using circular logic.

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.

It however is not incompatible with every other license as clearly demonstrated by

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Keep burying your head deeper in the sand.

 Please show how something can
include any GPL-covered work, yet be distributed under different terms if you insist on claiming that.

I don't have to show anything like that. You claimed that GPL isn't compatible with anything but itself. That is a false claim that easily disproved by dozens of licenses that are clearly compatible with it.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

Don't make blanket claims and then retroactively try to twist it to apply your own meaning to it. That is such a obvious ploy visible to everyone. Now that I have shown to everyone watching the discussion what a obvious troll you are, have a nice day ;-).

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