Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 02:34:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 02:34:08 -0500 Received: from smtp-outbound.cwctv.net ([213.104.18.10]:62994 "EHLO smtp.cwctv.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 02:34:06 -0500 From: To: andre@linux-ide.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 07:41:42 +0000 Subject: RE:Commentary Summary: AKA Andres manipulation... MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Liberate TVMail 2.6 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="1042011702856" Message-ID: <03cb35738070813DTVMAIL12@smtp.cwctv.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6802 Lines: 170 --1042011702856 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Attempting to manipulate the community is flawed do not continue subverting it. Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm]. On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:18:49 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick wrote: --1042011702856 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); Wed, 8 Jan 2003 05:21:05 +0000 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:11:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:11:40 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:21517 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:11:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (andre@localhost) by master.linux-ide.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29999 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:18:50 -0800 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:18:49 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Commentary Summary: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 What we have seen is a lot of slide of hand tricks to try and force all the hardware and software vendors to open source and give it all away. This is not going to happen. I tried it and had some success, but it cost me lots of money, time, legal hassles, but now that the chipsets are modular what will happen? The latest tricks in our bag: GPL_ONLY GPL_ONLY + restrictive kernel system calls. Rants about derived works. Is linux the sum of the drivers ? If all the drivers were gone, what would be left? Is linux the a derived work from the sum of the drivers? Is the the source code not that manual to the API? "Use the Source Luke!" Is linux going to invoke the DMCA to prevent usage? What will happen if any one of the developers trying to enforce copyright under GPL, loses? Now of to winners and losers: Linux 2.6/3.0 kernel ships. One distribution present today or created in the future because of politics or market forces, decides to disable the GPL_ONLY as to allow binary modules to use all of the kernel services unrestricted. The include all the source code and patches and follow all the rules that each one is doing today. Subtext: If GPL_ONLY is such a big issue for the distributions who employ and rightfully own the works released, ship their products in this mode? Of course they do not need to ship the patch, because it is in the kernel tree shipped. This would add complexity to the enduser, to undo such a deed. Would the customer switch distributions? The subtext above describes why the GPL_ONLY will fail. Remember, under GPL none of us can add restrictions to prevent people from changing the content of the files redistributed. So it is a given it will fail, once market forces are applied. Now move into the embedded appliance space. This will surely collapse into a black hole if they do not remove the "GPL_ONLY" properties in the future stable release. So again market forces are going to undo all the work everyone has tried to enforce like this was a closed society of developers, similar to Redmond. Now back to the issue of copyright enforcement since GPL is some what removed from the issue at the enduser level. Copyright only protects the actual document and not the content. Recall my whining about "Vojtech Pavlik ", during the time when "Martin D." was running the show, and everyone jumped on me and called me a fool for complaining about the file replacement issue? The reality is that "Vojtech" complied with everything about Copyright Law, and I had no case at all. What "Vojtech" did was to read my work and created something new from the idea inside the document. For the most part it worked just fine and functioned with the same behavior. One difference is is I lost my copyright on the file, but the "IDEAS" were transferred to a new file. Oh and Vojtech, I own you a huge apology for being rude and ugly to you over that entire series of events. If you can improve on the work, by all means you should, and please do. I will not can, nor would I stop or hinder progress again. Now jump back to the so called "unpublished API", again. Using the example above between "Vojtech" and myself, if anyone was to create a full snapshot and create a new work(s) by extracting all the ideas in the headers into a new set, nothing GPL or Copyright can do to stop them. What was done is to extract the ideas, not the actual protected work. Moving forward with this new snapshot of the API to Linux which is not subject to any license restrictions or copyright, like it or not that is the fact! What does this mean in other cases? Could HURD extract all the IDEA's from Linux and make it extinct? Who knows, but I do know that should RMS be successfull, that binary modules and freedom are gone. Since the IDEAS are transformed into a new work, assigned to FSF, oh it scares me to go further. This could be a reality. Here comes the boundary nobody wanted to find, except me! Finding it may make it impossible to use linux for any business model. Any model with IP or whatever you call it locked into "binary object". Subtext: "binary object" and not a binary module. For ease, lets make the new snapshot API "headers" licensed under LGPL. I will stop for now as I am tired. However this clearly explains how one can use the kernel API for a snapshot, but the pain involved is huge. I am not into this much pain, period. Flame me if you want, I do not care. Hate me if you want, I do not care. Kick me out again, I do not care. However, each of us should care and think about the above. Regards, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group - 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/ --1042011702856-- - 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/