From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 May 2001 05:47:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 May 2001 05:47:03 -0400 Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.82]:7187 "EHLO mailout05.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 May 2001 05:46:54 -0400 Date: 13 May 2001 11:32:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <80l$fSP1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules? X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh6 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? In-Reply-To: <20010509114816.K14127@work.bitmover.com> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in : > > you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine. > > If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to > > you that there really is no good reason not to just GPL it from the start. > > Smart advice. Problem is, the people making that decision are not always the people wanting to distribute the work in question, in which case the argument doesn't work. I don't know more about this specific case than what was said in the thread, but it sounds like a case in point. MfG Kai