On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
> >> > pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You
> >> > couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether
> >> > dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which
> >> > were proprietary in their license terms.
> >> > ----
> >> >
> >> > I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen
> >> > thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is
> >> > kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus'
> >> > not-really-an-exception
> >> > for user space).
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts?
> >>
> >> Perhaps this:
> >>
> >> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> >> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> >> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
> >
> > And how does that make it "impure" GPL? Permission to relicense
> > under revised later versions is not part of the GPL license terms.
>
> Are we talking about what makes sense, or about what Mr Moglen says?
I'm talking about lies ("in all good faith")
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf
"The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example
of a computer program that has been developed using the free software
model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL."
either to a judge in Indiana or to the press. Or maybe both.
regards,
alexander.
