Message-ID: <4686356F.5050100@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:50:23 +0200
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
CC: 7eggert@gmx.de, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       William D Waddington <william.waddington@beezmo.com>,
       Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@aitel.hist.no>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0
References: <8AH0j-3Qc-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <E1I4Nf0-00016f-9A@be1.lrz> <46857946.20201@gmail.com> <200706292211.43170.dhazelton@enter.net>
In-Reply-To: <200706292211.43170.dhazelton@enter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1057
Lines: 25

On 06/30/2007 04:11 AM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:

> On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:

>> Arguably (no doubt, sigh...) someone could distribute the kernel in
>> binary form but refuse to provide source for the bits marked as being
>> in the public domain alongside it -- yes, can of worms when compared to
>> GPL demands, but I believe I can see why one shouldn't even go near
>> there.
> 
> Actually, they couldn't. Second PD code became included in the kernel it
> would be covered by the GPL. If it can be shown that the kernel binary
> was the product of merging PD code in, then there is no way top refuse
> access to the PD code.

If indeed. If the PD code compiles to a standalone module then this becomes 
every bit as arguable as binary modules. That's the "(no doubt, sigh)" bit.

Rene.

-
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/