On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 18:29, Craig White 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. Not the license - the implication that binary driver modules are an illegal derived worked based on the kernel's copyrighted code. Until someone proves this unlikely claim in court it is as much FUD as Ballmer blustering about patents, and serves no one's purpose. > > > > 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. It would be much simpler if a distribution included the dozens of things that they normally don't but everyone needs and just made you get one thing yourself... -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
