[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel Code Drop Result of GPL Violation

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Microsoft's Linux Kernel Code Drop Result of GPL Violation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:54:46 +0200

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Hyman Rosen:
> >> I think it's clear if static linking is involved, but others
> >> may disagree (especially here :-)
> > I used to think it was clear, but there's this curious lack of
> > enforcement, so I've got doubts.
> There is no lack of enforcement. You are misunderstanding a use
> which is legal under the GPL, so no enforcement is needed.
> > Unless the component accompanies the executable.
> I still don't know what this means.

"The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, ..."

The bullshit rapper Eben Moglen went on:

"A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and
which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
“aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used
to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond
what the individual works permit."

"A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included
in conveying the object code work."

Try reading the GPLv3, silly.

Do you understand it, Hyman?



(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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