From: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
pmarques@grupopie.com, greg@kroah.com, nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl,
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal
Date: 27 Aug 2004 16:57:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1093640273.431.6484.camel@cube> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0408271226400.14196@ppc970.osdl.org>
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
>
> We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop.
Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
using hooks are illegal.
They're not nice at all, but that's a different matter.
> It's a gray area
> legally (and whatever you say won't change that),
Well, yes, but not very. If this ever goes before
a judge, betting that pwcx is ruled to be a derived
work would be a foolish way to bet.
> but it's absolutely not
> gray from a distribution standpoint.
>
> AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!
>
> So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked
> for it.
Sure. No problem, but let's not be suggesting that
this has anything to do with the law.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-27 21:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-27 19:18 pwc+pwcx is not illegal Albert Cahalan
2004-08-27 19:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-08-27 20:06 ` Kenneth Lavrsen
2004-08-27 20:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-08-27 20:24 ` David S. Miller
2004-08-27 20:26 ` Paul Jakma
2004-08-30 17:41 ` Brian Litzinger
2004-08-27 20:38 ` David Ford
2004-08-27 20:57 ` Albert Cahalan [this message]
2004-08-27 21:04 ` Greg KH
2004-08-27 21:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-08-29 14:00 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-29 16:33 ` Nemosoft Unv.
2004-08-29 15:42 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-29 17:17 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Randy.Dunlap
2004-08-29 17:16 ` Norbert van Nobelen
2004-08-27 19:34 ` Paulo Marques
2004-08-27 21:34 ` Albert Cahalan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-08-28 8:15 Gabucino
2004-08-28 10:30 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2004-08-28 12:18 Kenneth Lavrsen
2004-08-28 13:11 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-28 15:24 ` Kenneth Lavrsen
2004-08-29 14:02 ` Alan Cox
2004-09-01 22:51 ` Rogier Wolff
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1093640273.431.6484.camel@cube \
--to=albert@users.sf.net \
--cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl \
--cc=pmarques@grupopie.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox