RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10T18:39:25Z

Okay,

If I am wrong I can step up and freely admit it. :-)

If nothing else I got one point for getting you to point out you like OSL
which I do also.

So given RMS and company state OSL and GPL are not compatable, how does
the two exist in the current kernel? Earlier, iirc, there were comments
about dual license conflicts.

I was actually trying to show how silly David's arguement was about
imposing bogus rules and taking it to the logical ends of insanity. It is
lonely out here, I need more people to go over the edge on the
bobsled too.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

PS: I am not attached to the the flame war any more, I just enjoy the
warmth of the heat :-0

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> >
> > Lets have some fun now and play this game.
>
> Sorry, you need to learn the rules before you can play.
>
> > 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.
>
> That's against the GPL, and you can't modify the terms of the license. At
> most, you personally can say that you will not sue even when the license
> isn't followed - you can tell people that as far as _you_ are concerned,
> you can losen the license further, and that actually puts a legal onus on
> _you_ but nobody else.
>
> But while you have the right to say "I will not sue over this" and the GPL
> doesn't care one whit, you can _not_ say "I have my own list of additional
> requirements that would trigger copyright infringement".
>
> > 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.
>
> "The act of running the Program is not restricted" according to the GPL,
> and "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> exercise of the rights granted herein."
>
> So basically you _cannot_ take rights away outside the ones the GPL
> requires (which boil down to the requirement of having source available).
>
> > We can kill Linux in minutes, shall we?
>
> Trust me, when you said that the GPL is badly written, you have no clue
> what you're talking about. It's a very solid license, and your rants about
> it have no basis in fact. I personally actually like the OSL slightly
> better in the way it was written (see opensource.org), but your arguments
> against the GPL are just fundamentally wrong.
>
> Linus
>