Re: Question about the GPL copyright notice and the statementofcopying permission not being included in all the source files of aproduct.

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 11:33 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > Derivate work would be, for instance, taking Linux and modifying in
> > order to support a particular piece of hardware.
> 
> I don't need to modify Linux in order to support a particular piece 
> of hardware (unless you mean completely different architecture not
> supported by Linux), stupid.

I didn't say ANY, I said a particular... *sigh*

>  That's why a bunch of kernel "GPL
> purists" invent totally idiotic things like "tainted" scary messages, 
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, etc.

That's used for the sake of Linux developers. If they try to debug some
problem and there's a binary only proprietary module they can't be
responsible for weird things. Who knows what that module is doing!

> You and your fuhrer are amusingly insane.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html

Fuhrer? And we're insane *giggle*.

I think even Stallman has to agree that having no copyright would leave
you only with contract law, which would be much worse for Free Software.

Copyright law at least allows the creation of boundaries that clearly
say: this is Free Software, you can't take this from the community (the
GNU GPL).

That Copyright law is being abused more and more being perverted in the
benefit of private interests of a few [very rich] stake holders, is a
problem that must be treated at its root cause.

Rui

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part