On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 04:52:55PM +0200, Zeljko Vrba wrote: > 'Lionel Elie Mamane' wrote:
>>Please do so. I'm curious how you will handle: >> >> 1) Pointers being passed >> >> By copying the whole address space back and forth at each call and >> return? "Morally" that's not running in separate address spaces! > Make the programs share their _data_ segments, but NOT their _code_ > segments. GPL is about _code_, not about the _data_ created and used by > the code. The pointer may point to code. It can be a pointer to a function. For a callback, for example. > I don't have all details worked-out, but none of them seem really > unsurmountable. In the extreme case, nothing that couldn't be solved > with little kernel-side work and support. >> By all means, please follow through on this plan. It will be very fun >> to watch! > In what way "fun"? :) 1) Scientifically, see interesting problems tackled. 2) From a slightly more "Schadenfreude" perspective, watch the legal discussions and / or flamewars it will create. White papers flying around! Eben Moglen saying your mechanism doesn't circumvent the GPL, you disagreeing and arguing back, a new GPL revision coming out to address the "loophole" you have demonstrated (if it gets settled that it _is_ a loophole), etc. You saying that the revised GPL version doesn't count, because not derivative work and thus legally cannot enforce limitations. Fun to watch from the sidelines, cheering on, etc ;-) > In any case, Werner will run out of his only reasonable argument > (IMHO) for not supporting PKCS#11 and users will (hopefully) profit > ;) I find the following argument very reasonable: I have no interest in implementing PKCS#11 and nobody has stepped up to pay me to do it. He won't run out of *this* argument ;-) -- Lionel _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
