This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE. If the code
is FREE then let it be. You can put whatever
you want in the code -- I will remove any such constructs, just like I
remove them frm Red Hat's releases when they put
in the same kind of deliberate breakage for anti-competitive reasons.
You can go and yell at Novell too, since they do the SAME THING with
their releases and mix their modules with Linux.
All someone has to do or say is.
"... I did not ever accept the GPL license with the FREE code I was
given. They said the code was FREE, and I took them
at their word. .."
FREE implies a transfer of ownsership and you also have to contend with
the Doctrine of Estoppel. i.e. if someone
has been using the code for over two years, and you have not brought a
cause of action, you are BARRED from doing so
under the Doctrine of Estoppel and statute of limitations.
Here's what that means so you can look it up:
http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/Estoppel
What Linus argued is that FREE means just that.
Jeff
Scott Preece wrote:
On 12/14/06, Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
> than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite
> convey what it means, either.
Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?
I think it's the combination of "INTERNAL" and "EXPORT" that seems
contradictory - "If it's internal, why are you exporting it?"
I think "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_ONLY" or "...ONLY UNDER_GPL" would make the
meaning clearer, but I don't really think the gain is worth the pain.
Anybody using kernel interfaces ought to be able to figure it out.
But those symbols aren't, they're about internal interfaces that might
change.
Folks who think this is likely to make a difference in court might
want to look at
<http:www.linuxworld.com/news/2006/120806-closed-modules2.html> for a
litany of court cases that have rejected infringement claims where a
much sterner effort had been made to hide or block use of interfaces.
The article claims that courts have increasingly found that
interfacing your code to an existing work is not infringement,
regardless of what you have to work around to do it.
Of course, that's one author's reading of the case law and I'm sure
there are others who disagree, but it's something you'd want to keep
in mind in calculating the expected value of a suit...
scott
-
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/
-
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]
