Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262464AbTIOGOq (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:14:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262465AbTIOGOp (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:14:45 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-210-9-244-189.webone.com.au ([210.9.244.189]:3332 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262464AbTIOGOn (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:14:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3F6558AF.3040806@cyberone.com.au> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:14:07 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: andersen@codepoet.org CC: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] References: <20030914064144.GA20689@codepoet.org> <20030914080810.GA22137@codepoet.org> <20030915055721.GA6556@codepoet.org> In-Reply-To: <20030915055721.GA6556@codepoet.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1598 Lines: 42 Erik Andersen wrote: >On Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:17:37AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > >>Erik Andersen writes: >> >> >>>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. >>> >>"Because Linus said so". >> > >It does not say "Because Linus said so" in the Linux kernel >COPYING file, which is the only official document that grants >legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the kernel. > How about taking the "GPL exported" symbols just as notes which show their usage is not considered a derivative work by the copyright holders? This is what I always thought it was there for. This of course means someone can't simply add that "note" and expect it to change the way the copyright holders think of their work. I don't expect this would do much in court, but isn't that for binary driver people to worry about because it is granting more rights than the GPL allows. Maybe it could be written in legalease to give them more confidence. And it lets open source developers know where they stand. - 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/