On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 17:52 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 17:11, Alan wrote: > > > > who struck a deal with Microsoft which is borderline on the GPL. > > > > > > Isn't 'illegal to distribute' something that is decided by > > > the copyright/patent owner, not some slightly interested > > > bystanders? > > > > For the kernel I *am* a copyright holder. > > And how is what you are doing any different than Ballmer's > claims that the kernel infringes on Microsoft's patents? ---- Do you actually expect Alan to defend the GPL license? He didn't choose to use the GPL license, Linus did. Perhaps you need to debate Linus about his choice. Alan is contributing code to the kernel, at this point as I understand it, because he is employed by Red Hat. ---- > > I guess I would find it somewhat amusing if a Linux > distribution omitted the kernel and made you download > your own copy separately due to the FUD surrounding it > from all directions. ---- You would but your disdain for the GPL license is largely if not completely irrelevant. Craig
