Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:17:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:17:28 -0500 Received: from im2.mail.tds.net ([216.170.230.92]:49793 "EHLO im2.sec.tds.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:17:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:24:03 -0500 (EST) From: Jon Portnoy X-X-Sender: portnoy@cerberus.localhost To: archaios cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules In-Reply-To: <002301c2905f$ec818800$0100000a@r1a4n3> Message-ID: References:

<20021120042624.GA21122@willow.seitz.com> <002301c2905f$ec818800$0100000a@r1a4n3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1124 Lines: 28 Blatantly false. Have you even _read_ the GPL? It doesn't seem that way - in which case why are you discussing it? Please get your facts straight. While you're at it, please avoid making yourself look like an idiot in the future. On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, archaios wrote: > When you GPL a piece of software, you sign over your rights to the FSF. Therefore, there is very little that can be done about this; > from a legal perspective, the FSF _itself_ determines what is and what isn't construed as a derived work. > > - David McIlwraith > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ross Vandegrift > To: Rik van Riel > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 3:26 PM > Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:59:26AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: [snip] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/