Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

David Newall
2008-02-07T14:31:40Z

Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> Am Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:49:42 +1030
> schrieb David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com>:
>
>> Nobody is saying "I don't like your licence." The issue is a
>> technical restriction in Linux that attempts to restrict non-GPL
>> software from running under it.
>>
>
> What are you trying to say? You like the license but you're against
> enforcing it?
>

I told you: the GPL does not preclude inter-operation with non-GPL software.

>> It's a bullish approach, technically incompetent,
>>
>
> What's incompetent?
>
It's easily defeated.

>> legally meaningless
>>
>
> It is not legally meaningless if copyright holders publicly state how
> they interpret the license and what they consider a license violation.
>

Copyright-holders' opinions mean nothing. In the particular case of
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, copyright-holders' opinions are clearly flawed
because they make a statement about code that they do not even know of.
It's equivalent to someone saying, "you are wrong," before you've even
thought about saying something.

> In the end, a court must decide, but lots of courts will at least look
> at the statements the copyright holders made over the years.
>
>
>> and politically damaging.
>>
>
> That's your opinion because it's damaging _your_ political goals.
>

How ludicrous. That's as much a nonsense as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. You
have no idea what my political goals are.

Less there be further confusion: I am not an advocate for binary
drivers. That role is reserved for others. However that does not stop
me from criticising something that is obviously wrong. Stating that
only a GPL code is permitted to use a symbol contravenes the GPL,
because the GPL states no such requirement. Saying that it's impossible
for code that uses the symbol to be non-GPL (as has been claimed) is a
lie at worst, and a hope at best. Nobody claiming such a thing could
know it to be true. (It is not true.)