Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760131AbYBGPIb (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:08:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755455AbYBGPIW (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:08:22 -0500 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:34742 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754899AbYBGPIV (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:08:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:01:57 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: David Newall Cc: Chris Friesen , Greg KH , Christer Weinigel , Pekka Enberg , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only Message-ID: <20080207150157.39652cc6@core> In-Reply-To: <47AB1BFA.2020801@davidnewall.com> References: <20080125180232.GA4613@kroah.com> <20080202123710.42df1aa0@weinigel.se> <20080202191930.GA19826@kroah.com> <20080203124849.0226560f@weinigel.se> <84144f020802030635h3a9c4304n943d117e936f1c2d@mail.gmail.com> <47A5F418.6030104@weinigel.se> <20080203231530.GB15692@kroah.com> <47A8F27F.3060504@nortel.com> <47AB0238.5030400@davidnewall.com> <20080207141227.51193a12@core> <47AB1BFA.2020801@davidnewall.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 970 Lines: 18 > No, I'm right. The word "proof" is appropriate in context. (I write in > plain English, not Legalese.) I certainly didn't intend "proof" to mean > "mathematically certain." Anybody who pretends that proof in court > means that must be ignorant or trying to deceive. I'm afraid you are wrong despite your desperate attempts to reinterpret your own comments. The civil law is "balance of probability". Those are the precise words used. As it is a dispute between two civil parties with no assumed right or wrong it is a matter of which interpretation is most likely "proof" doesn't come into it whatever version of proof you want to pick this email. "burden of proof" is a specific term with a specific meaning in law. -- 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/