From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: buffer cache Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:16:10 +0100 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1063714569.3674.219.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <1063689231.788.63.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> <20030916101813.GA26576@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bryan Henderson , Greg KH , Jan Hudec , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pub237.cambridge.redhat.com ([213.86.99.237]:4052 "EHLO executor.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261883AbTIPMQO (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:16:14 -0400 To: Jamie Lokier In-Reply-To: <20030916101813.GA26576@mail.jlokier.co.uk> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 11:18 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > I think he'd have to be on crack, but I do accept that he _can_ do that. > > ...to write his own files which allow modules to work with the kernel > would require duplicating the existing include files in great detail - > perhaps enough to count as a derived work. > > In other words, it's widely believed that he _can't_ do that. He _can_ do it. If he actually does it by a large amount of copying, then you are correct that he _may_ not distribute the result under a licence other than the GPL. But he _can_ do it for his own purposes. > Fwiw I don't have any problem with this. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home I have no problem with. I don't want to see it advocated in public, to people who know no better. -- dwmw2