Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262080AbTIMRvv (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:51:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262142AbTIMRvv (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:51:51 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:9483 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262080AbTIMRvu (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:51:50 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:34:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: "Eric W. Biederman" cc: David Schwartz , Pascal Schmidt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1151 Lines: 28 On 11 Sep 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "David Schwartz" writes: > > > The GPL_ONLY stuff is an attempt to restrict use. There is nothing > > inherently wrong with attempts to restrict use. One could argue that the > > root permission check on 'umount' is a restriction on use. Surely the GPL > > doesn't mean you can't have any usage restrictions at all. > > No the GPL_ONLY stuff is an attempt to document that there is no conceivable > way that using a given symbol does not create a derived work. Bzzit ... GPL_ONLY stuff is an attempt to retrict usage by removing access to the unprotectable API. And for anyone claiming there is not API to protect, the kernel source is the manual to the API. The foolish intent and design to hide the API has caused the kernel itself to become the manual. This is even obvious to people, like myself, who are not lawyers. Andre - 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/