On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:05:13PM -0400, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> Richard Stallman is the creator of the license. It's his greatest work.
> Linus is in no way priviledged as to interpretation of it, other than
> tolerance on the part of the parties that own the copyright to the
> license.
Neither
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
> >standing to sue for license violation. [...] This means
> >that in order for them to lose, a court must rule that module linking
> >prop
On Thursday 21 June 2001 16:34, Craig Milo Rogers wrote:
> The in-core kernel image, including a dynamically-loaded
> driver, is clearly a derived work per copyright law. As above, the
> portion consisting only of the dynamically-loaded driver's binary code
> may or may not be a derived wo
On Thursday 21 June 2001 14:46, Timur Tabi wrote:
> 1. License the Linux kernel under a different license that is effectively
> the GPL but with additional text that clarifies the binary module issue.
> Unfortunately, this license cannot be called the GPL. Politically, this
> would probably be a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Earlier today I was contacted by a principal at a well-known Linux
> company who was in a mild panic over recent arguments by Alan Cox and
> David Miller. This company (not VA or Red Hat, BTW) fears that their
> customers will run from Linux if they get the idea that l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott)
>I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
>privileged with respect to interpretation of the license. I
Richard Stallman is the creator of the license. It's his greatest work.
Linus is in no way priviledged as to interpretation of it, other tha
> 1. Userland programs which request kernel services via normal system
^^
>calls *are not* to be considered derivative works of the kernel.
Please, at least don't say "normal" or it will be non obvious that it is
ok for the vsyscall
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:30:06 -0400
> I'm not sure whether you are right or wrong--but such a conclusion
> would be grossly unfair. I think a strong case would be made that
> existing practice wrt Linux is independent of existing practi
>> 3. A kernel module loaded at runtime, after kernel build, *is not*
>> to be considered a derivative work.
>
> It doesn't much matter
> under the GPL, anyway, so long as the in-code kernel image isn't
> "copied or distributed".
Broadly agree - thanks for someone pointing out the obvious
here.
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:05:34 -0400
> Sorry, I meant to say "chooser of the license". Given that Linux
> was never an FSF project, and that Linus editorializes at the top of
> COPYING, I think it is reasonable to infer that we are talki
> Pardon me, but what does "Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL" mean in the
> above 3)? (I'm asking to you since you seem to agree). Even if the
> database is found to be linked with a GPLed piece of SW, this doesn't make
> it (the database) GPLed, it just breaks Oracle's licence on the GPL SW.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
> Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:46:25 -0400
>
> > I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
> > privileged with respect to interpretation of the license.
>
> Ah, bu
** Reply to message from Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:46:25 -0400
> I agree entirely that Linus, as creator of the license, is
> privileged with respect to interpretation of the license.
Ah, but Linus didn't create the license, he's using someone else's. The GPL is
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:13:22PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> > > makes him privileged in this respect.
> >
IANAL. I also dislike fencepost errors. Hence, these
comments.
The GNU GPL Version 2, June 1991, (hereafter the GPL), applies
"to the modified work as a whole". Consequently:
>2. A driver or other kernel component which is statically linked to
> the kernel *is* to be conside
** Reply to message from Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21 Jun 2001
22:12:35 +0200 (CEST)
> They only have to recompile their program against non-GPLed code (e.g.
> rewrite that part from scratch) and redistribute it.
That assumes that a non-GPL equivalent even exists, or can be writ
** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21 Jun
2001 16:13:22 -0400
> Linus *is*, however, implicitly claiming the authority to make license
> policy on behalf of the other copyright holders in cases where the GPL
> is unclear.
And that could be dangerous to "GPL p
Eric S. Raymond writes:
> All I have done is propose that he be more explicit about his
> policy in order to prevent needless confusion and nervousness.
Amen.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a me
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>
> At 8:06 PM +0100 2001-06-21, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
> >> What is the difference between including kernel header file and
> >> including GPLed header file?
> >
> >There are real differences between programs and interfac
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
> > 2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this case to
> >be GPL'd header files.
> > 3) Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL.
> >
> > There's not a court in th
Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> > makes him privileged in this respect.
>
> Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
> state
Your analogy is flawed.
You state that "the kernel is the equivalent of an application", when
compared to user-space application/library relationships.
The flaw in this analogy is, a library does 'require! and use'
routines provided by the application. The library provides methods
and services T
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:17:16PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> IANAL, but I believe that Linus's position as anthology copyright holder
> makes him privileged in this respect.
Regardless of what you find in the books, recall that Linus has
stated that decentralizing the copyright of Linux was
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:03:32PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Besides, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. Linus has already decided
> to allow binary-only drivers. The question is not WHETHER it is allowed, but
> HOW it will be allowed. Please stay on topic.
In my opinion Linus was alr
At 8:06 PM +0100 2001-06-21, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
>> What is the difference between including kernel header file and
>> including GPLed header file?
>
>There are real differences between programs and interface definitions. At this
>point you get i
- Received message begins Here -
>
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> >
> > The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> > Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and othe
> IANAL, and this may be a dumb question, but what about LGPLing the driver
> abstraction layer and/or headers? (Presuming of course there -is- a driver
GPL + LGPL gives you GPL so it doesnt help. You can combine it with the driver
or with the kernel but not with both together.
-
To unsubscrib
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox did have cause to say:
> An application is clearly not a derivative work in the general case, and they
> are linked with glibc which is LGPL and gives the users the choice and right
> to run non-free apps.
IANAL, and this may be a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Timur Tabi wrote:
> In my opinion, this whole thing would just go away (including some of
> Microsoft's anti-GPL rants), if the FSF officially declared that under the GPL,
> #including a GPL header file does NOT force your code to be also GPL.
The problem being, there is n
> 1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
> 2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this case to
>be GPL'd header files.
> 3) Oracle Corp.'s database becomes GPL.
>
> There's not a court in the civilised world that would uphold the GPL in th
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
> > >standing to sue for license violation. Therefore, when he says
>
> He's copyright holder of parts of it. The FSF is also a copyright holder of
> oddments, as are many people.
IANAL, bu
** Reply to message from Mike Harrold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21 Jun 2001
15:04:21 -0400 (EDT)
> Not to mention utterly unenforceable. Consider:
>
> 1) Oracle Corp. builds their database for Linux on a Linux system.
> 2) Said system comes with standard header files, which happen in this cas
> To be honest, I disagree that #include'ing a GPL header file should force your
> app to be GPL as well. That may be how the license reads, but I think it's a
> very bad idea. I could write 1 million lines of original code, but if someone
> told me that but simply adding #include my code is no
> > the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
> What is the difference between including kernel header file and
> including GPLed header file?
There are real differences between programs and interface definitions. At this
point you get into law and the like and its probably best you read up
** Reply to message from Wei Weng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 21 Jun 2001 16:01:58
-0400
> Hell, why does the linux community need to care about other *greedy*
> people who don't want to GPL their work anyway? If you want to protect
> GPL as the principle in Linux, well, screw the device driver maker
On 21 Jun 2001 13:46:48 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21
> Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
>
>
> > To calm down the lawyers, I as the principal kernel maintainer and
> > anthology copyright holder on the code am therefore adding the
> >
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:39:13AM -0700, Jeff Golds wrote:
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> >
> > The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> > Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and
** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 21
Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
> To calm down the lawyers, I as the principal kernel maintainer and
> anthology copyright holder on the code am therefore adding the
> following interpretations to the kernel license:
>
> 1. Userl
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
>
> The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and others who
> actually wrote it.
>
> The GPL license requires that
> >As copyright holder of the Linux kernel, Linus is the only person with
> >standing to sue for license violation. Therefore, when he says
He's copyright holder of parts of it. The FSF is also a copyright holder of
oddments, as are many people.
> >"binary modules are OK", he is stating a polic
As you know, there's been another flap recently about the GPL status
of loadable kernel modules. You have a note that touches on this in
the kernel COPYING file, but it is not sufficient to resolve the
questions that keep coming up.
Earlier today I was contacted by a principal at a well-known Li
41 matches
Mail list logo
