Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262114AbUKJUJq (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:09:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262032AbUKJUJq (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:09:46 -0500 Received: from inetc.connecttech.com ([64.7.140.42]:17682 "EHLO inetc.connecttech.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262114AbUKJUJN (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:09:13 -0500 From: "Stuart MacDonald" To: "'Alan Cox'" , "'Geert Uytterhoeven'" Cc: , , "'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" Subject: RE: GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox +code Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:09:06 -0500 Organization: Connect Tech Inc. Message-ID: <00d201c4c761$21ec83c0$294b82ce@stuartm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <1100110480.20555.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1460 Lines: 44 From: Alan Cox > 1. "You must pay $1000 to distribute the source" > 2. "I will pay you $1000 if you do not distribute the source" > 3. "If you distribute the source then I won't supply you updates" To restate #1 in equivalent words: 1. "If you distribute the source, you must pay $1000." How is that different from 1. "If you distribute the source, you lose a contractual right you have paid for." ? Both are of the form: if (exercise(GPL-protected-right)) penalise(method); > #1 places conditions on a GPL provided contract right which the GPL > prohibits Since my 1.s are equivalent to yours, thus #1 applys equally to mine, one of which is the hypothetical (see my previous post) situation under discussion of sveasoft revoking support contracts. So I've reached a logical inconsistency in your argument. One of two things must be true: a) you are wrong, or b) my assertion that my 1.s are equivalent to yours are wrong. I'm willing to believe I've made a mistake. Please show me where. Note that your 3. is not equivalent to the hypothetical situation under discussion because "I won't supply you updates" is not equivalent to sveasoft's action of "We revoke your support/updates contract". ..Stu - 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/