Le 2015-08-19 20:04, Michael Orlitzky a écrit :
On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
2. Patching it.
3. Linking it with closed source code.
4. Distributing the result.
(If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes).
Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on
you to show that you were allowed to do it.
You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3.
The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't.
Selectively quoting...
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License...
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify
or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions
are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License...
The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little
technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL
under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this,
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL
so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear.
The changes made have for reason to keep people from having an acceptable
display. This would not hold in court.
This move from the dev could seriously hurt the community on the long run for
many reason.
No sane person will accept a crappy display. If the dev do not care it is
likely that they are not using Linux as a desktop so you should stick to their
windows, mac, xbox or playstation and stop pissing off the Linux users.
Michel
--
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
