Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754315AbWLRRXG (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:23:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754317AbWLRRXG (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:23:06 -0500 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241]:27920 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754315AbWLRRXF (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:23:05 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=FPtg87V1qXSvlYejAOXauXUdpapmEQIAnVf4f9PeYiZ5KWRaAdCx/cuCRcqD51ArOXXxPllUf1ZDBYkWDRGHymEwNYJcd01p8bcMqoRUniixyObV94FAqBMrbWLg9+FwIpQaU7sRRNUYzlOvh4v84Ng/fOstHzY7MUBCv6K9Zmg= Message-ID: <161717d50612180923h6ae59ff1y1ef01d4a6dc2caed@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:23:03 -0500 From: "Dave Neuer" To: "Theodore Tso" , "Dave Neuer" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Alexandre Oliva" , "Ricardo Galli" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL only modules In-Reply-To: <20061218170222.GB18255@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200612161927.13860.gallir@gmail.com> <161717d50612180738y4feec39dp5d1d090409a9e074@mail.gmail.com> <20061218170222.GB18255@thunk.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: d1c0cdf16ae85b7a Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1635 Lines: 34 On 12/18/06, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote: > > I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example > > below; the concept of independant "meaning." If your code doesn't do > > whatever it is supposed to do _unless_ it is linked with _my_ code, > > then it seems fairly clear that your code is derivative of mine, just > > as your sequel to my novel (or your pages added onto my book) don't > > "mean" anything if someone hasn't read mine. > > For myself, I believe we actually get the largest amount of > programming freedom if we use a very tightly defined definition of > derived code, and not try to create new expansive definitions and try > to ram them through the court system or through legislatures. In the > end, we may end up regretting it. To be sure, we as programmers will have the most freedom if there is no form of intellectual property protection for software at all (imagine all of those Renaissance publishers whose sensibilities would have been quite shocked by the suggestion that their distribution of some author's work for a small fee was somehow "theft"). It's less clear to me that a more expansive "we" will be equally well served, freedom-wise, by less protection though I'm very sympathetic to the argument. > - Ted > Dave - 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/