Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]

Andre Hedrick
2003-10-05T20:46:15Z

Will give you your point, regardless that is is wrong.

If loading a NON-GPL module is in violation of the license then enforce
the license to prevent one from loading.

Legally you can not, thus the license for which you claim is in violation,
violates itself. Restriction of usage.

Well the right-of-way is now there little chance of it being taken back.

GPL sucks as a general license, yet it was the best thing going at the
time. It has a means to prevent us from moving forward to migrate to a
better license.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 13:14 -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > Regardless, nobody stopped him at that time and thus a right of way has
> > been granted and can not be revoked.
>
> Wrong. While Linus' statement does bar him from personally suing you, it
> doesn't stop anyone else.
>
> > See above, the boss changed the rules and nobody challanged it.
>
> He did not have authority, by that time, to change the rules. Neither
> was he unchallenged.
>
> > Whatever happened to "World Domination" according to TUX ?
> > Whatever happened to 'having a choice' ?
>
> You do have a choice. You can use software under the terms of the
> licence under which it's released, or you can choose not to use it.
>
> > Lets assume you are correct, and the effect is a "Tar Baby".
> >
> > Your claims that anything which loads into a kernel is automatically a
> > derived work. Thus the effect of an original work loading into a gpl work
> > force the original work to be GPL. This is a joke and will never see a
> > second in any court.
>
> You really aren't paying attention, are you? Your copyright (or lack of
> it as a derivative work) on your own module is largely irrelevant to my
> argument.
>
> The GPL says you may use the kernel _itself_ but only with certain
> restrictions.
>
> My claim is that the GPL forbids you from loading a non-GPL'd module.
> Not that if you do so, the non-GPL'd module becomes a derived work, but
> that in doing do you are violating the licence under which you received
> the _kernel_ and hence you must immediately cease using the _kernel_.
>
> Just like if the GPL required you to bathe in creosote daily and one day
> you forgot.
>
> I repeat, for the hard of understanding:
>
> I am not asserting that if you manage to produce a loadable module which
> a court would rule is not a derivative work, you would not be allowed to
> distribute that.
>
> I am asserting that if you do so, you are disobeying the restrictions on
> your use of the kernel itself, and hence you would not be able to use
> the kernel. You could use your own module, but not the Linux kernel.
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
>