Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S279685AbRJYGYX>; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:24:23 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S279681AbRJYGYK>; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:24:10 -0400
Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:48615 "EHLO
	shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S279680AbRJYGXv> convert rfc822-to-8bit; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:23:51 -0400
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.51 (988) - Registered Version
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:24:15 -0700
In-Reply-To: <3BD438ED.360D0007@lineo.com>
Subject: Re: Input on the Non-GPL Modules - legal nonsense
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <20011025062415.AAA15814@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


>I keep hearing this type of reasoning.  It flat-out doesn't work this way in
>the legal system.  This is similar to arguing that you didn't really stab
>someone if you threw the knife instead of holding it. ("But your honor, once
>the knife left my hand it really wasn't under my control...")

	What amazes me is that these legal arguments about the control programmers 
have over their software, are coming from the free software community. If 
Microsoft argued that anybody who wanted to write a program to link with 
Windows system DLLs had to give them 2% of the profits, they'd be blasted by 
the press, yet the free software community wants to argue that programmers 
can't use their APIs if they don't have certain licensing terms?!

	The irony is killing me.

	DS


-
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/