[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Intellectual Property II

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property II
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:45:10 +0100

day5done commented...

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Just to stress...
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> [...]
> >
> >
> > LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from
> > Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file
> > that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL,
> > where's the uncertainty?
> >
> > Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree
> > that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL
> > violations.
> -----
> LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see
> proprietary modules as an infringement?
> Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the
> degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder
> of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with
> some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is
> dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and
> because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what
> determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear
> analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the
> license if it's pure GPL.
> -----

"Analytically, the above would be true only if the first Nth 
 hyperbolic cosines of the address registers are congruent (in a 
 Hilbert Space) to the metric tenor of the hard drive space when 
 mapped one to one onto (or is it into?) a finite but unbounded 
 timelike manifold.

 Eben's got more bullshit rap than Snoop Dogg. "


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]