Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
cc: James Clark <jimwclark@ntlworld.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Driver Model
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAENJGCAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10309031024030.13722-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2574
Lines: 62


On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

> 
> 	I agree with you, except for the one place where you've contradicted
> yourself:
> 
> > If you are an embedded space widget.  Apply thumb to nose and wiggle
> > fingers.  Provided you ship the source code you modify in the kernel, and
> > I do mean all of it, use the short cut to clobber the issues in module.h.
> > When they scream and complain about, this violates intent, ask them are
> > they issuing a restriction on the usage of the GPL kernel?  If they do not
> > permit one to use it under GPL them the kernel itself is in violation.
> 
> 	In other words, you cannot release something under the GPL and
> simultaneously restrict its use.

You have made my points even clearer.

The fact that GPL_ONLY horse sh*t exists means there is a restriction on
usage.  So "GPL_ONLY" has in effect violated GPL, by imposing restrictions
of usage.  People will say that I am nuts and have spent to much time in
the disk drive layers and my brain has not stopped spinning to reconnect
to the stem.

> > Now back to "tainting", if the politics were such to cause all modules
> > which are not GPL to be rejected then the game is over.  Because the
> > kernel does not reject loading, it by default approves of closed source
> > binary modules.  One could use the means of taint-testing to accept or
> > reject, regardless of the original intent.  Many have and will make the
> > argument the kernel has the ability to reject closed source and it choose
> > to accept.
> 
> 	So no, the kernel does not have the ability to reject closed source. That
> would be an additional restriction upon use that the GPL does not allow you
> to impose.

Exactly!

I think it is about time to start http://www.ungpl.com/ however that is a
gas and pipe line already, which gives a broader meaning to the what and
why many people have earned the title of "GPL NAZIS".

Yeah, I said it and it is flamebait.  I am pulling out some marshmellows
to cook as I wait for the roasting fireballs to come my way.

I am not here to make friends, just promote Linux for business and
commerial usage and the direction today is wrong period.  I will not
debate the point, this is my opinion and it is correct.

Cheers,

Andre

PS: any references to "you" is a general to the mailing list and not to
any individual.

-
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/