RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10T13:49:46Z

Lets have some fun now and play this game.

As principle author of the "taskfile transport", any an all operations
using, storing, execution, transfering, copying, opening ... anything
may not operate with non-source-published binary modules.

So everyone one with/sells a PVR, NAS, SAN, Laptop, Workstation, Server
which uses IDE/ATA/SATA is forbidden to operate unless written terms of
use are set forward.

We can kill Linux in minutes, shall we?

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Maciej Zenczykowski wrote:

> > > My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules
> > > in 2.6 and
> > > beyond.
> >
> > I'm baffled how you think this is a choice that can be made. The license is
> > the GPL itself and even the Linux kernel developers have no power to change
> > it.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. If Linus and a few core developers decide to
> explicitly state that you can't use the Linux kernel with binary only
> modules than you can't. They have the right under copyright to restrict
> the usage of their contributions - if this means that they say "you can't
> use our contributions to the kernel with any binary only ring 0 code" -
> then you can't. And it is totally irrelevant whether your work is derived
> or not. They can't force you to release your work as GPL - but they can
> forbid you to utilise the linux kernel with non-GPL'ed work - which in the
> end is quite close.
>
> Or am I totally wrong here?
>
> Cheers,
> MaZe.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>