Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:01:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:01:47 -0500 Received: from smtp-outbound.cwctv.net ([213.104.18.10]:25438 "EHLO smtp.cwctv.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:01:43 -0500 From: To: davids@webmaster.com, rms@gnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 05:10:02 +0000 Subject: RE:Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Liberate TVMail 2.6 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1041743402562" Message-ID: <048250406050513DTVMAIL4@smtp.cwctv.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4976 Lines: 121 --1041743402562 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit you are confusing Richard Stallman with me, I argued headers were a derivative use, this _may_ not be his view, i appologise if you feel misled. Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm]. On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:17:30 -0800 David Schwartz wrote: --1041743402562 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.116.70.75]) by smtp.cwctv.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44); Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:21:26 +0000 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 19:09:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 19:09:01 -0500 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:12790 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 19:08:59 -0500 Received: from whenever ([206.171.168.130]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:17:31 -0800 From: David Schwartz To: CC: X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.63 (1077) - Licensed Version Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 16:17:30 -0800 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-free drivers? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <20030105001731.AAA11069@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner+Hell.Surfers=40cwctv.net@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:44:58 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: >Defending shrink wrap licensing agreements, arguing to weaken >fair use and >first sale doctrines, and arguing that if you include a header it's >a derived >work is a strange way to defend intellectual freedom. >Those are not my views. Are you confusing me with someone else? Then please explain to me how the GPL comes to apply to a person who did not agree to it as a condition of receiving a copyrighted work. Please explain to me why you think that the GPL should have applied to kernel modules that only include header files. You may not explicitly endorse the obvious logical consequences of your views, but you are still responsible for them. >>If open source is so good, companies with closed source products >>will >>change. >Yes, even without being coerced and pressured to do so by >restrictive >licenses. >The Open Source Movement says that will happen; when it does, that's >good, but if we had relied on that to give us freedom, we wouldn't >have any free operating systems today. That's a lot better than trying to arm twist others in to providing our freedom to use their works. When you talk about forcing a person to distribute the source code to a derived work, you are only talking about their control over what they added. When a person creates a derived work of an open source work, all they have to offer is the value they added. In the name of freedom, you take their control over their work from them. This is the same "freedom" that socialism promises the workers. They call it the freedom to own the machinery they use to produce. Analogously, this "freedom" is really just the loss of the freedom of ownership. >In the Free Software Movement we think freedom is worth working for. >If companies don't choose to respect our freedom, we don't cite that >and say "it's hopeless" and we don't say that makes non-freedom ok. >We write free replacements and build freedom for ourselves--and for >you. This is false for two reasons: 1) The difference between the GPL and the BSD license is the GPL license *compels* source distribution. You can't compel someone else to make you free. It's just not going to work. 2) To make the GPL enforceable, you need to argue for a very loose definition of a derived work and you need to argue that a license can be enforceable even if it's not negotiated or explicitly agreed to prior to distribution. This will have the net effect of reducing everyone's freedom in very real ways. DS - 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/ --1041743402562-- - 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/