In-Reply-To: <40D20449.5000107@stanchina.net>
References: <200406180629.i5I6Ttn04674@freya.yggdrasil.com> <87n032xk82.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> <20040617100930.A9108@adam> <96BD7BAE-C092-11D8-8574-000393ACC76E@mac.com> <40D20449.5000107@stanchina.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <5828B232-C0A0-11D8-8574-000393ACC76E@mac.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, hch@lst.de,
       "Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>
Subject: Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:53:11 -0400
To: Flavio Stanchina <flavio@stanchina.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1157
Lines: 25

On Jun 17, 2004, at 16:51, Flavio Stanchina wrote:
> Your argument applies to the SCO case because their code (if there is 
> any, which nobody but SCO still believes is the case) did *not* have a 
> license attached to it that didn't allow modification, redistribution 
> or whatever else the GPL requires; otherwise they wouldn't have 
> trouble demonstrating which code it is they're talking about. So any 
> sane person would understand that they knowingly released it under the 
> GPL: if they'll try to argue that they didn't know the kernel was 
> covered by the GPL, I don't think the judge will go for much less than 
> capital punishment when he stops laughing.

I wasn't discussing those particular firmware files.  I definitely
agree that they must get out of the kernel immediately.  I was
discussing a different piece of code someone was suing over,
sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett


-
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/