From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262848AbTJEBFy (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:05:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262850AbTJEBFy (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:05:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:13507 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262848AbTJEBFx (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:05:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:05:21 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Rob Landley Cc: andersen@codepoet.org, "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" , Andre Hedrick , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] Message-ID: <20031005010521.GA21138@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Rob Landley , andersen@codepoet.org, "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" , Andre Hedrick , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030914064144.GA20689@codepoet.org> <20030915055721.GA6556@codepoet.org> <200310041952.09186.rob@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200310041952.09186.rob@landley.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=0.3, required 7, AWL) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:52:09PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On Monday 15 September 2003 00:57, Erik Andersen wrote: > > On Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:17:37AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > > > Erik Andersen writes: > > > >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. > > > > > > "Because Linus said so". > > > > It does not say "Because Linus said so" in the Linux kernel > > COPYING file, which is the only official document that grants > > legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the kernel. > > Linus clearly and publicly stated his position on binary only kernel modules > almost exactly one year ago: Yeah, but Linus stating his position about a license doesn't mean diddly. The kernel is licensed under a license, that license is a contract that people enter into. To the extent that it is enforceable, that license determines what happens, Linus can't retroactively decide to interpret the license a different way. The license can't enforce things which the law doesn't allow. In particular, the law understands a concept of a boundary. And Linus' comments notwithstanding, modules are a pretty clear boundary. Even the GPL acks this, it knows that anything which is clearly separable is not covered. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm