day5done commented... Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Just to stress... > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > [...] > > http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/ > > > > 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. " regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss