Re: [future of drivers?] a proposal for binary drivers.

[Tim Tassonis <timtas@cubic.ch>]

>>> under US copyright law.
>> Well, I'd really like to know how your patriotic sentiments were hurt by 
>> Bernd in the above sentence. Maybe we Europeans are not compassionate 
>> enough, it seems, as I can see absolutely nothing anti-american in his 
>> posting. Maybe mentioning the existence of other countries/laws is 
>> nowadays considered anti-american?
> 
> I'm sorry I posted that, this thread is OT anyway.  I'm just annoyed
> when people who don't know US law speculate about how terrible it is
> (like the common misconception that reverse engineering for
> interoperability is banned in the US).  Of course I don't think that
> pointing out differences is anti-American.
> 
> Lee

And I'm sorry for my language (well, I'm actually not, but of course I 
only wanted to provoke). The thing is probably that Non-Americans often 
get a bit irritated when U.S. posters start talking about law on lklm 
and not seldom seem to imply that the U.S. law is the only relevant one 
in regard of Linux. Of course the GPL was written in the U.S., but Linux 
was GPL'ed back in Finland, Linus used to be non-american, Alan Cox 
still is and the number of Linux installation outside the U.S. certainly 
far outnumbers the ones within the states. And when the pointing out of 
this fact is considered anti-american I get quite furious. At least we 
Europeans have not much else in the computing industry apart from Linux, 
you know (apart from having invented the computer).

Tim