On Saturday, 16 December 2006 11:50, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose > > > > > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations > > > > > > > > Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple: > > > > > > > > "Derived works have to be under the same license" > > > > > > > > where the rest is just really fluff. > > > > > > > > But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's > > > > what copyright law defines. > > > > > > > > And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you > > > > push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our > > > > work", > > > > you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the > > > > RIAA is your best buddy. > > > > > > > > And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our > > > > _own_ > > > > lines" is exactly that total disaster. > > > > > > > > We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us > > > > by > > > > copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp > > > > and > > > > too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible > > > > situation we could ever be in. > > > > > > > > The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the > > > > sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be. > > > > > > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility > > > between the author's intent and the user's intent. For this exact reason, > > > I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software (haproxy) stating that I > > > explicitly permit linking with binary code if the user has no other choice > > > (eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), provided that "derived work" > > > does not steal any GPL code (include files are under LGPL). On the other > > > hand, all "common protocols" are developped under GPL so that normal users > > > are the winners, and everyone is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for > > > their new code to benefit from everyone else's eyes on the code. > > > > > > This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are > > > doing legal things or not. > > > > > > Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the > > > sources ? It could put an end to all those repeated lessons you have to > > > teach to a lot of people about fair use. Or perhaps you like to put > > > your teacher hat once a month ? :-) > > > > I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we > > can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support > > them somehow. > > Agreed this is the most important problem. > > > So, why don't we make an official statement, like something that will appear > > on the front page of www.kernel.org, that the users of binary-only drivers > > will never get any support from us? That would make things crystal clear. > > This would constitute a good starting point. But what I was trying > to address is the other side of the problem : all the politicial > discussions on LKML which make the developers waste their time > always trying to explain the same things to extremist people (you > see, "we must forbid binary drivers to protect users freedom" and > "I'm free to run whatever I want"). I don't care at all about what > those people think and I don't like the way they want to impose > their vision to others. But above all, but I'm fed up with those > recurrent subjects on development and bug reporting mailing list, > they waste everyone's time.
Agreed. Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
