Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't see how anyone can forget that he plainly wrote that demanding
that modules be GPL'd is both legally and morally wrong. Or have any
question about the meaning of this portion of the Linux license:
Again, he said no such thing. In fact, he argued explicitly that even if
it legally correct, it is morally wrong.
"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use
kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered
normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading
of "derived work".
This is clearly talking about syscall interface and unrelated to the
kernel modules interface.
"Well, there really is no exception.
So his own quote, and the FSF legal counsel's understanding of the terms
as he stated them were both wrong?
The portion I quote is from a mail from Linus. He clearly says there is
no exception
Read again,
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/COPYING-modules.txt
http://web.archive.org/web/20060202062935/people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules
FSF didn't give a direct interpretation of his quote and that cannot be
held more authoritative than the original copyright holders anyway.
Simply put, FSF doesn't hold copyright over the Linux kernel. The
copyright holders (which is more than just Linus) intention's matter.
You were told about the problems earlier on too and you choose to
ignore it. CDDL was deliberately designed to be incompatible with GPL
Deliberate? _Everything_ that is not the GPL is incompatible with the GPL.
This one is a clear lie. There are dozens and dozens of GPL compatible
licenses. Any license which has no additional restrictions above and
beyond GPL requirements are compatible with it.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
Rahul
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
