From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264366AbTLKH0u (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:26:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264367AbTLKH0u (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:26:50 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140]:4844 "EHLO grelber.thyrsus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264366AbTLKH0r (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:26:47 -0500 From: Rob Landley Reply-To: rob@landley.net To: Linus Torvalds , Andre Hedrick Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:26:46 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Maciej Zenczykowski , David Schwartz , Jason Kingsland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312110126.46599.rob@landley.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 10 December 2003 10:07, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. I believe OSL's patent termination clause would have prevented IBM from using patents in its counter-suit against SCO. This license stuff isn't quite as easy as it looks. :) > Linus Rob