Rahul Sundaram 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.
Are you really reading the contents of this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/d5af1cc0012c3bec?
The discussion is in fact generic about modules in general and none of
the parts I quoted had anything to do with AFS. That is mentioned later
as an example where 'it would be rather preposterous to call the Andrew
FileSystem a "derived work" of linux'. So it may not be preposterous to
say that about other modules, just legally and morally wrong for the
reasons he clearly states in general terms.
"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.
No, if one version is a lie, I will have no reason to accept other
versions that may just as well be more lies.
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 don't, but why make such a claim when you obviously can't back it up?
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
Those are licenses that can be usurped by the GPL requirements. They
don't - and can't - retain their terms when included in a work with a
gpl component.
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 ;-).
I'm not twisting anything. The GPL must apply to the work-as-a-whole.
That's not what I want it to mean. That's just what it says.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
