> I think it would be a hell of a lot better idea if people just realized
> that they have "fair use" rights whether the authors give them or not, and
^^^^^^^^^
> that the authors copyrights NEVER extend to anything but a "derived work"
...
> I find the RIAA's position and the DMCA distasteful, and in that I
> probably have a lot of things in common with a lot of people on this list.
> But by _exactly_ the same token, I also find the FSF's position and a lot
> of GPL zealots' position on this matter very distasteful.
...
> Because "fair use" is NOT somethng that should be specified in the
^^^^^^^^^
> license.
As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never tried
to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to "distibution" of the
covered program. The freedom #0 says explicitly: "right to use the program
for any purpose".
So, I don't see any clash here between GPL/FSF/RMS with "fair use"
And you probably know that any GPLed code can be linked and executed with any
other program, whatever is its license if it's for personal use (is that
worse than "fair use"?).
And even if there is a function in linux that disables loading of non GPL
modules, it's still allowed under the GPL to distribute a kernel with those
functions removed. Any user can load any other module in this kernel without
worrying about "fair use" or "derived work", GPL allows her to do it.
So, where's the freaking relationship between GPL (or its "zealots") and "fair
use"? Who is trying to re-define it?
FUD, FUD, FUD.
--
ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34
http://mnm.uib.es/gallir/
-
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]
