On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:32:29AM -0600, Walter Landry wrote: > Sigh. This is why Adam decided to take spend his efforts elsewhere. > Any of these events are unlikely to happen. Linus signed off on the > (obviously problematic) first one, so he probably just doesn't care. > No one is going to spend the money for a lawyer (unless the FSF can > somehow get involved in this, and many people don't trust the lawyers > from FSF anyway). And Keyspan wants their stuff widely dispersed. I > can't imagine why they would care what license their binary data is > under, as long as it waives liability.
What I am saying here, is that I don't think there is a legal problem, and until told otherwise by someone who I acknolowdge as a better legal interpreter than I, I am not going to change the code. > > It's just too big of a architectural change for this to happen in a > > stable kernel series. > > That is a technical objection. You don't seem to care about the legal > problems. Adam is a copyright holder in this case. He has standing > to enforce the GPL (though I doubt he'll actually send you a threat > letter). He is telling you that there is a problem with code you have > included. It is obviously incompatible, but you choose not to resolve > it. Yes it is a technical objection, because I don't believe in Adam's arguments about his copyright holding in this case. I now understand why Adam thinks this way about it, but I don't agree with his logic. And I don't feel like arguing the point, as I have code I would rather be writing in my free time. So until proven otherwise by a "trusted by Greg" authority, I am not going to change it. And since Keyspan is working to resolve this, this is currently moot. > It is carefree attitudes like this that caused the lawsuits around BSD. It is careless statements like this that don't really apply in this case :) thanks, greg k-h
