Dear whoeveryouare, can you please state in a clearer form (more understandable to non-native english talkers) what your true opinion on the topic is? And in case you did not understand what I was saying, here is clearer form of my opinion:
A kernel module with another license (be it whatsoever) is _no_ modification of the kernel, but an extension of its features. If feature-extension is against the GPL (which I seriously doubt) then I would say "go back onto your trees". Because the human race and evolution is about little else than feature-extension. And another thing: court is for lawyers. Whenever the lawyers take over something they don't (want to) understand the end is near ... How about talking with real names? I have no idea why you spam rms or bruce with this, as the question is all about _one_ project, namely linux-kernel. I'd suggest taking them off this topic again ... -- Regards, Stephan On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 11:03:56 +0000 whywontyou...@waifu.club wrote: > Dear Stephan von Krawczynski; > > Universal City Studios Inc v Reimerdes, piece of shit. > > "[The court] reasoned that Ferret consumers who used the Ferret as a > plug-in to the Real Player altered the Real Player user interface by > adding the Snap search button or replacing it with the Stream box search > engine button. The court concluded that the plaintiff raised sufficently > serious questions going to the merits of its claims to warrant an > injunction pending trial" > > Want to violate the linux kernel copyright, you fucking piece of shit? > Yes you do. Yes modifying the running kernel with violating pieces is > copyright infringement, you fucking piece of shit. Yes you should be > sued. Just as Open Source Security (Grsecurity) should be sued for their > violations (of section 4 and 6 of the linux kernel copyright license > (they're also violating the GCC copyrights too)). > > Will they be sued? Will you be sued? No: Linux copyright holders are > scared little wageslave worker bees. They aren't going to sue you; > sorry. Why are you even announcing you intent to violate the copyright? > Why even give these dogs such intellectual deference? > > I wish OpenSourceSecurity would be sued. I wish you would be sued. But > linux WERKIN MAHN wage slave piece of shit idiots won't do it: I hate > them much more than I hate the violators. Complete Dogs. They could move > from strenght to strenght, from victory to victory; but they're scared > for their "JEHRB"s. I have to say: white men are pathetic scum. If Linux > was built by others there would rightfully be lawsuits. > > > > > Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > you may have already heard about it or not (several times in the past), > > non-kernel devices run into a symbol export problem as soon as > > something is > > only exported GPL from the kernel. > > Currently there is a discussion regarding zfs using this call chain: > > > > vdev_bio_associate_blkg (zfs) -> blkg_tryget (kernel) -> > > percpu_ref_tryget > > (kernel) -> rcu_read_unlock (kernel) -> __rcu_read_unlock (kernel) > > > > where __rcu_read_[lock|unlock] is a GPL symbol now used by (not GPL > > exported) > > percpu_ref_tryget. > > > > That this popped up (again) made me think a bit more general about the > > issue. > > And I do wonder if this rather ideologic problem is on the right track > > currently. Because what the kernel tries to do with the export GPL > > symbol > > stuff is to prevent any other licensed software from _using_ it in > > _runtime_. > > It does not try to prevent use/copy of the source code inside another > > non-gpl > > project. > > And I do think that this is not the intention of GPL. If it were, then > > 100% of > > all mobile phones on this planet are illegal. All of them use GPL > > software > > from non-gpl software, be it kernel modules or apps - and I see no > > difference > > in the two. The constructed difference between kernel mode software and > > user-space software is pure ideology. Because during runtime everything > > is > > just call-chained. > > Which means if you fopen() a file in user-space it of course uses GPL > > symbols > > down in the chain somewhere. The contents of the opened file are not > > heaven-sent. > > If you/we follow the current completely ideology-driven GPL strategy > > then I am > > all for completely giving up this whole project. In real world you > > simply > > cannot use such a piece of software. The success of linux during the > > last > > years (i.e. decade) is not based on the pure GPL strategy, but on the > > successful interaction between linux and non-GPL software. > > Just think of the billions of smartphones all using a non-gpl firmware > > (underneath, and there is no GPL version at all), the kernel (with > > non-gpl > > modules) and apps (quite some of which are non-gpl). > > This is only one prominent example, but there are lots of others. > > In the end it all sums up to one simple question: > > Can one _use_ GPL software during runtime as a base for own projects of > > any > > license type or not? We are not talking about _copying_ gpl code, we > > are > > talking about runtime use. > > If runtime use is generally allowed, then the export gpl symbol stuff > > inside > > the kernel code is nonsense. Because to use the kernel you must be > > allowed to > > call it, no matter from where. > > Hit me. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Stephan _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
