On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:32:51AM -0400, Patrick McFarland wrote:
Closed source modules are lame, and against the spirit of open source, but
that still doesn't make them against the license.
This is _your personal interpretation_ of what consists a "derived work"
under the GPL.
Other people have other opinions on this issue.
Other people even have asked lawyers that said they'd disagree with
interpretations like the one you expressed.
Right.
Then why not make some official and only right interpretation of what is
derived work for GPL2 in Linux and what is not, make it part of license or
COPYING file and end this type questions, doubts and flamewars once for
ever?
Why does Linus and others let lawyers and courts decide in such
(important?) thing like what is allowed in Linux (or with Linux) and what
is not?
Why not be brave, make the decission (preferably as liberal as possible)
and end all of this instead of letting others decide (worse: letting
others decide based on different and changing local, national rights and
probably also on who is paying them)?
If it would mean changing Linux license (and getting every contributor
agreement) then it could be made at least as a clear comment ("What is and
what is not derived work for GPL2 in Linux kernel in opinion of main Linux
kernel developers?") in the begining of the COPYING file, signed by most
important kernel developers (that produced 99% of the code and headers
used or touched by controversial modules anyway).
Thanks,
Grzegorz Kulewski
-
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]
