On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Freddie Cash wrote: > >> >> For the record, the following paragraph was incorrectly quoted by Bob. This paragraph was originally written by Erik Trimble: > I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that someone lawyerly has had >> the appropriate discussions with the porting team about how linking against >> the GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be GPL-compatible. >> It doesn't matter if you distribute it outside the general kernel source >> tarball, what matters is that you're linking against a GPL program, and the >> old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do >> that. >> >> This is the start of the stuff that I wrote: > GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license. You can manually >> download all the GPL and non-GPL code you want, so long as you do it >> separately from each other. Then you can compile them all into a single >> binary on your own system, and use it all you want on that system. The GPL >> does not affect anything that happens on that system. If you try to copy >> those binaries off to use on another system, then the GPL kicks in and >> everything breaks down. >> >> IOW, the GPL has absolutely no bearing on what you compile and run on your >> system ... so long as you don't distribute the code and/or binaries >> together. >> > > I am really sad to hear you saying these things since if it was all > actually true, then Linux, *BSD, and Solaris distributions could not > legally exist. Thankfully, only part of the above is true. His complaint is about the mis-quoted paragraph from Erik, and not about the stuff I wrote. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
