From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964834AbWFNKyg (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:54:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932335AbWFNKyg (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:54:36 -0400 Received: from gw.openss7.com ([142.179.199.224]:26041 "EHLO gw.openss7.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932329AbWFNKyf (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:54:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:54:23 -0600 From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" To: Alan Cox Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API Message-ID: <20060614045423.A18812@openss7.org> Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org Mail-Followup-To: Alan Cox , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1150156562.19929.32.camel@w-sridhar2.beaverton.ibm.com> <200606131859.43695.chase.venters@clientec.com> <20060613183112.B8460@openss7.org> <200606131953.42002.chase.venters@clientec.com> <20060614000710.C7232@openss7.org> <1150281823.3490.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <1150281823.3490.14.camel@localhost.localdomain>; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:43:43AM +0100 Organization: http://www.openss7.org/ Dsn-Notification-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan, On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Alan Cox wrote: > It isn't "policy" its called copyright law. I know that I said I'd shut up, but I missed in TRIPS where it said that symbols must be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL... Could you point that out? (Just kidding.) > You don't seem to understand copyright law either. The GPL like all > copyright licenses deals with the right to make copies and to create and > control derivative works. It's not "defeated" by four lines of code. The 3 or 4 lines of code that I wrote as an original expression before the patch was submitted. > Is that a confession ;) No, just a declaration: the code in question was released under GPL Version 2. > Copyright is not about novelty, you have it confused with the > theoretical (not actual) role of patents. Wrong kind of intellectual > monopoly right. Yes, perhaps I should have said "original" instead of "novel". The patch is not "original" as it was predated by equivalent (machine translatable) original expressions.