Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262324AbTINIIN (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:08:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262326AbTINIIN (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:08:13 -0400 Received: from codepoet.org ([166.70.99.138]:46000 "EHLO mail.codepoet.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262324AbTINIIM (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:08:12 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 02:08:10 -0600 From: Erik Andersen To: Andre Hedrick Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] Message-ID: <20030914080810.GA22137@codepoet.org> Reply-To: andersen@codepoet.org Mail-Followup-To: Erik Andersen , Andre Hedrick , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030914064144.GA20689@codepoet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.19-rmk7, Rebel-NetWinder(Intel StrongARM 110 rev 3), 185.95 BogoMips X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1709 Lines: 37 On Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 12:10:27AM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed > > source binary only product that runs within the context of the > > Linux kernel is not a derivitive work, per the very definition > > given in the kernel COPYING file that grants you your limited > > rights for copying, distribution and modification. > > See above again, nobody has to do anything if the API is restored to it > original format. Thus no changes, no modifications. All of your points > are void. Truly a dizzying intellect! All my points are void and it is ok to load binary only modules in the Linux kernel without releasing source for the derivitive work. And the reason why it is ok to thus violate the Linux kernel licence is because.... Oh, I guess you forgot the part where you explain why this is legal. Sorry, but The Great Andre has Spoken isn't good enough. Sorry, I'm not going to ignore the man behind the curtain. When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed source binary only product that runs within the context of the Linux kernel is not a derivitive work and therefore not subject to the terms of the GPL, per the definition given in the kernel COPYING file that grants you your limited rights for copying, distribution and modification. -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- - 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/