Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:38:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:37:33 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:44677 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:36:15 -0500 From: Richard Stallman To: andrew@indranet.co.nz CC: andre@linux-ide.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: <15900000.1041638213@localhost.localdomain> (message from Andrew McGregor on Sat, 04 Jan 2003 12:56:53 +1300) Subject: Re: Gauntlet Set NOW! Reply-to: rms@gnu.org References: <15900000.1041638213@localhost.localdomain> Message-Id: Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:49 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2323 Lines: 50 But sometimes we can't make things free, either because it comes to close to core IP which we are legally bound to protect, or because it's a derived work of something we bought and don't ourselves have the right to redistribute. At this level of generality, I can only say that if the program is to be published as non-free software, it will not be available to people to use in freedom. Its effect will be to tempt people to give up their freedom. If I had a choice to develop that program or no program, I would develop no program. I would rather look for constructive alternatives than just criticize. In such a situation, I would look for a way to make the program free. This scenario is too general to get started on that. (I explained in another message how the term "intellectual property" tends to obscure important distinctions; this is an example.) In any specific case there is likely to be some way. If there is no easy way to make the same program free, there may be a harder way. People who value freedom strongly sometimes choose the hard path to freedom rather than the easy path that extends non-freedom. That is how we extend freedom. As an ultimate fallback, there is surely some other job you could do instead. Linus has made it quite clear in the past that his position on binary modules is that they are explicitly allowed, but that the maintainers of such a thing 'get everything they deserve' in terms of maintenance hassle. Linus has the right to permit this, with his code, and so do other contributors to Linux. In the GNU Project we usually don't permit this, and the FSF believes the GPL does not in general permit it, but occasionally we make an exception when it seems best to do so. I have no opinion yet about what Andre said, because I cannot form a clear picture of what he plans to do; I don't know whether it would violate the GPL, or whether the issue would involve the FSF. We do not enforce the GPL for Linux in any case; that is the responsibility of the copyright holders of Linux. - 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/