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

Erik Andersen
2003-09-14T08:08:13Z

On Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 12:10:27AM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed
> > source binary only product that runs within the context of the
> > Linux kernel is not a derivitive work, per the very definition
> > given in the kernel COPYING file that grants you your limited
> > rights for copying, distribution and modification.
>
> See above again, nobody has to do anything if the API is restored to it
> original format. Thus no changes, no modifications. All of your points
> are void.

Truly a dizzying intellect! All my points are void and it is ok
to load binary only modules in the Linux kernel without releasing
source for the derivitive work. And the reason why it is ok to
thus violate the Linux kernel licence is because....

Oh, I guess you forgot the part where you explain why this is
legal. Sorry, but The Great Andre has Spoken isn't good enough.
Sorry, I'm not going to ignore the man behind the curtain.

When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed
source binary only product that runs within the context of the
Linux kernel is not a derivitive work and therefore not subject
to the terms of the GPL, per the definition given in the kernel
COPYING file that grants you your limited rights for copying,
distribution and modification.

-Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--