From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263109AbTJEN4h (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:56:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263113AbTJEN4h (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:56:37 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:7629 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263109AbTJEN4g (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:56:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 06:56:03 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: David Woodhouse Cc: Larry McVoy , viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Rob Landley , 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: <20031005135603.GA10245@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , David Woodhouse , Larry McVoy , viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, 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> <20031005010521.GA21138@work.bitmover.com> <20031005023428.GI7665@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20031005034533.GA29679@work.bitmover.com> <1065349476.3157.10.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1065349476.3157.10.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> 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 Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 11:24:36AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 20:45 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > People get all worked up over this but when they do then they should > > also claim that system calls are not a boundary either. > > The first paragraph of the COPYING file makes it entirely clear that > system calls were not considered to be such a boundary. You're forgetting that what the GPL says doesn't matter if it is unenforceable. Remember all the people yelling at me that they can reverse engineer BK in spite of any no-reverse-engineering clauses? That same logic applies to the GPL, you can't have it both ways. It doesn't matter what you think, or I think, or Linus thinks. What matters is what is legal and what isn't. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm