Message-ID: <47AB2BE0.9030104@davidnewall.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:33:44 +1030
From: David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Diego Zuccato <diego@otello.alma.unibo.it>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
       Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only
References: <20080125180232.GA4613@kroah.com>	<20080202123710.42df1aa0@weinigel.se>	<20080202191930.GA19826@kroah.com>	<47A5D895.20300@davidnewall.com>	<47A6E742.80408@otello.alma.unibo.it>	<courier.47A8F072.000079E4@hawking.rebel.net.au>	<20080205232550.5d3d22ff@core>	<47AB0101.2050204@davidnewall.com>	<20080207141030.78958c29@core>	<47AB1A3E.3040703@davidnewall.com> <20080207145817.181481e9@core>
In-Reply-To: <20080207145817.181481e9@core>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4651
Lines: 98

Alan Cox wrote:
>> That's what you claim it says, but has any court, anywhere, agreed with
>> you?  You claim the authority of others (i.e. numerous lawyers), but I
>> don't believe you have that authority.  You're just starting hearsay. 
>> You've never said what lawyers and you've never told us what they
>> actually said.
>>     
>
> That would be improper as you'd well know if you knew the first thing
> about the subject.
>   

It would not be improper to say that "such and such a lawyer said this
and that."  I'm not proposing that you breach their copyright in their
opinions, but there is such a thing as fair use, and I expect you to use
it or stop bringing it up.  Anything less than that starts to sound odd.

>> I see that you have a clear political agenda, and I respect it in
>> principle, but you're claiming that things are so in pursuit of that
>> agenda when you don't *know* that they are.  You don't need to stretch
>> any truths to spread adoption of GPL, and doing so is not respectable.
>>     
>
> Why don't you just say "you are a liar" as I assume that is what you want
> to say.

Various reasons.  I don't know that you're a liar and I'm too much the
gentleman to accuse you of that without being quite sure of my facts. 
As it happens I assume you're not lying, but I do suspect you of having
misrepresented what was said to you.  I don't say you've done this out
of malice; it's possible you've read things into opinions given to you
that weren't meant; or even inaccurately remembered what was said. 
Mostly, I think what I've already said: In other words, I think you've
put a spin on the opinions in pursuit of your own agenda.  You've
already watered down your claims, being that you now say, "bad idea".


>> I don't understand this, but I do understand that an essential question
>> being considered is whether or not Linux can participate in a market
>> that prohibits GPL drivers, whether explicitly, or more likely through
>> pressure from regulatory bodies.  Doing this would be a mistake. 
>> Probably a big one.
>>     
>
> Linux is GPL licencesed code you either follow the licence or don't use
> it. It's very simple. 
>   
Okay, that I understand.  That is simple.  But it's irrelevant to the
topic under discussion, which is to seek to restrict access to modules
based on their specific licence conditions.  The GPL makes no such
restriction, and it is improper and legally meaningless, from a licence
point of view, to claim that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL forms a condition of
licence.  It doesn't.  (There may be DMCA considerations, but I hope
that everyone from Stallman to Torvalds would hasten to disclaim them.)


>> Don't telling people to switch to BSD, as some have done; they might do
>> it.  Where would Linux be if embedded devices used BSD instead?  Don't
>>     
>
> I don't actually care. If you want to do binary products then pick a
> product you have the right to do that with. 
>   

Please don't refer to me in this way.  Say, rather, "if someone wants to
do binary products."  Putting that aside, Linux is such a product. 
There is nothing in the GPL that suggests it may not be used with
proprietary products, and much to say that it may.


>> think they can't.  Don't think Linux has a technical advantage.  Lose
>> the embedded market, and that's where it would be felt first, and Linux
>> volumes fall by what?  50%?  90%?  Would you care if servers followed?
>>     
>
> The market will ultimately decide which models of software development
> are the right ones for which situation.
>   

Presumably you mean "product," and not "model of software development,"
since later in no way relates to the topic.  The market will ultimately
decide which product is right.  It would be a great shame if Linux
dwindled.  There's no shortage of fully open source operating systems,
but the one enjoying success which requires source to be distributed
with (hardware) product is Linux.  I don't want that to change.  I make
purchasing decisions for clients based on availability of source.  BSD
isn't useful.  Annex used BSD (there was no GPL) and their product was
poorer for it.  I don't particularly like binary drivers, but I like
binary-only operating systems even less.

There's no need to play brinksmanship with manufacturers.  Please don't
take Linux away from my router, and my modem, and my access point, and
my telephone, and my printer.
--
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/