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

jw schultz
2003-09-13T05:38:57Z

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 04:26:19PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > On Gwe, 2003-09-12 at 22:47, Matt D. Robinson wrote:
>
> > > So include GPL_ONLY(), don't include GPL_ONLY(), whatever. If you
> > > don't like it, Mr. Customer, find a Linux distributor that will
> > > fix the problem for you.
>
> > Linux vendors have already recieved, and decided to act on cease and
> > desist letters involving adding hooks (ie EXPORT_SYMBOL stuff) for non
> > free modules that were not in the base distro. I think that speaks for
> > part of the legal view.
>
> Who is sending these letters? Who has no respect for the GPL and seeks to
> add additional restrictions? IMO, these letters are almost as bad as the SCO
> letters. Nobody has any business putting additional licensing restrictions
> on code was placed under the GPL.

I don't know who but i can say that Linus or anyone he
assigns can do so based not on GPL but on trademark. That is
to say that while it wouldn't be a violation of the
copyright license to distribute such modified code but it
would be within the rights of the trademark holder (Linus)
to refuse them the _privilege_ of calling the modified code
Linux. Not only would it be within his rights but it is
necessary for him to define and enforce restrictions on what
may be called Linux or he would lose that authority.

Just like you can make a copy of Red Hat's distribution but
without Red Hat Inc's explicit permission you cannot call it Red
Hat or Maroon Chapeau, etc. For that matter the Open group
could, in theory, deny SCO the privilege of of calling their
own products UNIX.

--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: jw@pegasys.ws

Remember Cernan and Schmitt