Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Completely irrelevant to your previous line of reasoning which you
> snipped out again.  Really, your smokescreen and quote birdshot
> weazeling is most tiresome.  You can't cure a wrong argument by

What "wrong argument" are you talking about? Your fellow GNUtian 
ams' non sequitur regarding "work"? Oh. It reminds me of Moglen's
"a work"...

http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/

-----
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.
-----

Any comments, dak?

regards,
alexander.