Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262051AbTIMFi5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:38:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262052AbTIMFi5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:38:57 -0400 Received: from vladimir.pegasys.ws ([64.220.160.58]:51215 "EHLO vladimir.pegasys.ws") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262051AbTIMFiz (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:38:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:38:51 -0700 From: jw schultz To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model] Message-ID: <20030913053851.GE19721@pegasys.ws> Mail-Followup-To: jw schultz , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <1063405883.5783.19.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Message-Flag: The contents of this message may cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2037 Lines: 45 On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 04:26:19PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > On Gwe, 2003-09-12 at 22:47, Matt D. Robinson wrote: > > > > So include GPL_ONLY(), don't include GPL_ONLY(), whatever. If you > > > don't like it, Mr. Customer, find a Linux distributor that will > > > fix the problem for you. > > > Linux vendors have already recieved, and decided to act on cease and > > desist letters involving adding hooks (ie EXPORT_SYMBOL stuff) for non > > free modules that were not in the base distro. I think that speaks for > > part of the legal view. > > Who is sending these letters? Who has no respect for the GPL and seeks to > add additional restrictions? IMO, these letters are almost as bad as the SCO > letters. Nobody has any business putting additional licensing restrictions > on code was placed under the GPL. I don't know who but i can say that Linus or anyone he assigns can do so based not on GPL but on trademark. That is to say that while it wouldn't be a violation of the copyright license to distribute such modified code but it would be within the rights of the trademark holder (Linus) to refuse them the _privilege_ of calling the modified code Linux. Not only would it be within his rights but it is necessary for him to define and enforce restrictions on what may be called Linux or he would lose that authority. Just like you can make a copy of Red Hat's distribution but without Red Hat Inc's explicit permission you cannot call it Red Hat or Maroon Chapeau, etc. For that matter the Open group could, in theory, deny SCO the privilege of of calling their own products UNIX. -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws Remember Cernan and Schmitt - 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/