From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 00:05:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 00:05:39 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:21717 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 00:05:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 21:05:38 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: Larry McVoy , "Albert D. Cahalan" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rtai@rtai.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] Message-ID: <20020525210538.E19792@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Wolfgang Denk , Larry McVoy , "Albert D. Cahalan" , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rtai@rtai.org In-Reply-To: <20020525161034.L28795@work.bitmover.com> <20020525235442.CFB3511972@denx.denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 01:54:37AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > there is some GPL stuff in here, but we're releasing under the LGPL" > > You can release some stuff onder one license, other stuff under a > second license, and yet other stuff onder a third license. Is that > too difficult for you to understand? That's all fine, but the RTAI COPYING file looks to me like a delibrate attempt to mislead. I'm pretty sure that a court of law would see it the same way. Add to that the the RTAI system is based in the RTL system, which was obtained under the GPL, and that there are files which are obviously derivative works with a LGPL license on them, and I think you'd be squirming in front of judge with nowhere to run. > Just for the record: you claimed there was "substantial parts of > RT/Linux in the RTAI source"; when challenged to provide examples, > you tried to evade several times; finally, you fell back to the "but > it's derived from RTL", which nobody ever denied. No, I suggested you go look for yourself, just as I did. It's called giving you a chance to back down gracefully. You don't seem to want that chance, OK, that's your call. Let's explain the facts of life. If you start with a GPLed file and you enhance, bug fix, whatever, and the resulting work is what is known as a "derived work", it's still *all* GPLed. That's how the law works. That was the whole point of how the GPL was written, it was designed to not let people like you change the rules without the permission of all the people who had copyrights on that work. I don't have to show entire files being identical to make the point, all I have to show is that the files are derived from GPLed versions of the same code. Anyone with a brain would do what I did, go walk the header files, find the common definitions, go look at the code that implements those definitions, and know immediately it was derived work. That's all it takes. That's enough. The law needs no more than that. If you want to wiggle out from under the rules, you're going to need what is known is a "clean room" reimplementation, wherein nobody who is doing the work has ever seen the other code. Otherwise it is virtually impossible to avoid the derived work problem, and the burden is on you, the person trying to change the rules, that it is not a derived work. The court would presume, in a case like this, that it was. You can try and push that back on me all you want, but I'm not the one you need to convince. You need to convince prospective customers that you have clear rights to use what you are giving them, and in this case, that looks virtually impossible. I know about this stuff, I run a software business, I personally negotiate the contracts, and no company with any legal staff whatsoever would enter into contract with a vendor that is not willing to state and prove that they have rights to what they are selling. That's contracts-101. I get the feeling you want me to back down and go away. Go Google around and you'll find that I just don't, not until you prove that I'm wrong. In this case, the more I dig into it, the more convinced I am that the RTAI crowd is trying to rewrite history and that does nothing but make me more motivated to stick around and make sure people look at this closely. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm