Message-ID: <2534.10.10.10.24.1112099348.squirrel@linux1>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503290659360.10929@chaos.analogic.com>
References: <200503280154.j2S1s9e6009981@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl>
    <1112011441.27381.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>
    <1112016850.6003.13.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
    <1112018265.27381.63.camel@localhost.localdomain>
    <20050328154338.753f27e3.pj@engr.sgi.com>
    <1112055671.3691.8.camel@localhost.localdomain>
    <c4ce304162b3d2a3ad78dc9e0bc455f5@mac.com>
    <1112059642.3691.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
    <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503290659360.10929@chaos.analogic.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:29:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!.
From: "Sean" <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
To: linux-os@analogic.com
Cc: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
       "Kyle Moffett" <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>, floam@sh.nu,
       "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, arjan@infradead.org,
       "Paul Jackson" <pj@engr.sgi.com>, gilbertd@treblig.org,
       vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl, bunk@stusta.de
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Importance: Normal
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1804
Lines: 40

On Tue, March 29, 2005 7:15 am, linux-os said:

> In the United States there is something called "restraint of trade".
> Suppose there was a long-time facility or API that got replaced
> with one that was highly restrictive. To use the new facility, one
> would have to buy a license or kiss somebody or something that
> was not previously required. If an action was brought against the
> person(s) who replaced the old facility with the new one, it
> is likely that the plaintiff would prevail.
>
> If there is documented proof that those symbols were previously
> available and then they were changed to something more restrictive,
> I think one would prevail if a complaint were brought in court.
>
> If course, you need to convince the person(s) who changed them
> that the action was unconscionable and therefore force them to
> change them back without making money for the lawyers by suing
> them. And, yes, somebody who modifies software in that manner
> can be sued. They could also be charged with criminal behavior
> (malicious mischief) in the State of Massachusetts or charged
> under federal law with restraint of trade. Modifying an existing
> policy to further an individual's ambitions can be fraught
> with consequences.
>

What the hell is this world coming to?   Can we please just respect the
intent of the GPL and dispense with all this legalese crap; at least here
on LKML?  People who want a free ride and don't care about returning
anything to the community that created Linux have many other forums in
which to vent.

Regards,
Sean


-
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/