Alan wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0100 (MET)
Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
Because if you go around modifying code to get around it then regardless
of the DMCA question you are actively doing it and there is very clear
intent to do other than the right holder intended. In some ways its the
difference between walking through an open archway into a private area
and kicking the door down to get in.
It's a sign, a notice, and the reason I brought up this discussion is
precisely because I don't think the kernel has any business being an
enforcement mechanism - that's not what the spirit of our community is
really about, we're about openness (as much as is possible).
If I go into an airport, open my laptop and connect to a network called
"Free WiFi network", then I might have a good case to argue that I
expected the WiFi to be free. If I connect to a network called "Not
Free, Don't Use" then...I think the intent of the wording is clear.
Anyway. Are we doing this or not - the more I think about it, the more
I'm kinda "happy" to just leave things as they are. Yes, bad people will
continuing doing bad things no matter what we do. Do we really want to
change stuff just to work around obvious abuse? Alan?
Jon.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
