I am sorry for me being ignorant but this discussion is interesting. You are essentially saying that even if you break the GPL license, no one can sue you in Israel? Also, Mosix is developed by you at huji which is a respectable institute. Wouldn't it be immoral of you to exercise this kind of conduct in the university. Not to mention the poor example you are giving your students to break laws that morally shouldn't be broken? I mean, palgiarism of any kind is not tolerated in any learning institute. And obviously this is what you do, since the writer of Linux intended his work to be used in a certain way. (please note also that Linux was first developed by Linus at his university). I must add also that this kind of mentality of steal and don't get caught is very bad for Israel.
Ok, now after i said all that: Don't get me wrong, i like Mosix and i believe that an institute like huji should use its resources to further the principal or research and study. * - * - * Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax (+1 Outside the US) 240-597-3213 * - * - * - * - * - * -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Amnon Shiloh Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module "Gilad Ben-Yossef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wrote: > > We in the MOSIX team did not violate any copyright or do anything illegal: > > It is true that parts of our software did not comply with the GPL, > > but there was no reason they should have. > > Violation is indeed too harsh a word and inapropriate. but there was a license >change which came about after some discussions with Linus and friends, or so I've >heard? We had indeed some discussions, it is also true that as a result we took down MOSIX altogether off the web, and requested MOSIX users to destroy all their copies - just as a precautionary measure until we had the time to conduct a thorough legal study on the matter. It so happened that in the end, the decision to release MOSIX as GPL came as a result of other changed circumstances and had nothing to do with the previous discussions. Without those circumstances changing, it was our resolve, that should we prove to be in error and violating the law, to close down MOSIX rather than issue it under the GPL. > > The software we released in the first versions of MOSIX for Linux-2.2.x > > could be divided to 5 different categories: > > > <details snipped> > > Since our binary module did not contain anything from Linux, we > > could issue > > it in any way we pleased: we did not even need to consider the GPL or > > obtain any license or permission from anybody whatsoever. > > Again, I am no lawyer, but the "official" GNU/FSF standpoint as I understand is that >the fact that module links against a GPLed work (the Linux kernel) means in is >considered a "derived work" of the Linux kernel and therefor can only be published >under the GPL. And probably it is a "derived work" according to the GPL - but this concept of "derived work" is not a legal one, but rather an invention/definition of the FSF itself. (BTW, MOSIX was essentially written long before Linux, so it cannot really be considered a "derived-work" in the more common use of the term). > So, if you accept the FSF interpertation of the GPL (and they did write it) then you >are wrong, because that binary module linked ( when loading) aginst a GPL module ( >the kernel). I accept the FSF interpretation of the GPL - but in the case of our MOSIX-module software, we had no reason to abide by the GPL. > Regardless, I think that GPLing MOSIX was a good idea in all respects, but that's >just me ;-) Now, "Oded Arbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Adds: > You are clearly either (a) have not read the GPL, or (b) incredibly arrogant > ( I would hedge a guess and say, with you being from HUJI - both) : > > <snip from the GPL license> > requirement 2.b) > You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License. > </snip> I have read the GPL thoroughly, I also read the Torah almost as thoroughly, and I am probably (or in the GPL case, was) in violation of some sections of both. Fortunately (yet), neither of these is the law of the land. > also > > <snip> > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If > identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, > and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in > themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those > sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you > distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based > on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of > this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the > entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. > </snip> Yes - this is one of the GPL sections we [used to] violate. I could mention quite a few Torah sections as well that I personally violated at one stage or another. > and lastly - something from Richard Stallman : > <snip from an email in the MICO ml> > There is no fundamental difference between static and dynamic linking, > as regards the GNU GPL or the GNU LGPL. Our position is that if you > link a GNU program into a combined program, no matter what kind of > linking you use, you have to obey the terms of the GNU program in > distributing the combination. > </snip> This is correct: the relevant part of MOSIX could have just as well been coded as a straight, static, non-GPL object-file - and given it does not copy anything or #include any GPL'd objects, it would still violate the GPL just the same, yet violate no law of the land. > Also - the fact that you finally did release MOSIX under full GPL terms > proves my point - you wouldn't have done that unless you knew you were in > error. You happen to be wrong on that point, but unfortunately we are not allowed to disclose the true reasons why we ended up releasing MOSIX as GPL. > Oh - and now to prove point (b) : while the Iranian constitution has no > relevance to the problem at hand (unless, maybe, if you were going to > distribute MOSIX in Iran), the GPL has every relevance to the issue, as you > were distributing a piece of software goverened by the GPL. since a court of > law - besides ruling according to the prevailing law (which actually has > very little relevance to the issue, except the part talking about contracts > and licenses and how you need to uphold both) - will need to rule whether > you where in violation of the terms of a license you were supposed to obey, > as you were using software under its terms. > > Q.E.D Before any court of law attempt to ask whether we violated any particular license, it would first need to ask whether we had any obligation to abide by it in the first place. The software in question was NOT goverened by the GPL. I am aware that the Jewish law considers every person who was born to a Jewish mother as obliged by the Torah, whether they believe in it or not - so does the GPL consider certain kinds of related software as bound by it: MOSIX would have certainly failed and been convicted in a GPL court ("Bet Din"), but fortunately no such court has legal power either in Israel or elsewhere. Amnon Shiloh -- the HUJI MOSIX group. > > Oded > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Amnon Shiloh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:45 AM > Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module > > > > "Oded Arbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wrote: > > > > > I do not know what was the original status of MOSIX or what the > allegations > > > were, but the setting you described here will violate the GPL as it is > > > usually interpeted (again : IANAL and I don't think this was ever > conteseted > > > in court) IF : > > > the binary code will link in run time (or in any way run in > cooperation > > > with) a GPLed code, while at the same time not doing anything useful w/o > > > having the GPLed code around. > > > > The status of MOSIX was as described and there is no argument > > about us being (at the time) in violation of the GPL: > > we were probably also in violation of the Microsoft license > > (for not displaying the Microsoft logo), the Iranian constitution > > (for working from Israel), the Jewish law (for whatever parts were > > written during the Shabbat) and many other laws of different states, > > companies and organizations. > > > > The whole GPL-based arguments are irrelevant: we were distributing > > a piece of software that was written and copyrighted solely by us, > > we did not copy anybody else's code (including implicitly due to > compilation), > > therefore we have the right to issue our own software in any way we like. > > The purpose/usefullness of this code is also irrelevant, so long as it is > > legal (eg. not designed to produce bombs, drugs or for other crimes), and > > there is no law against linking one's software against another piece of > > legally-obtained software. > > > > > > > > of course - Linus' attitude as described in this forum a number of times > > > would probably mean you won't get sued.. > > > > We would not get sued because: > > 1. MOSIX is now GPL anyway. > > 2. we violated no law, we stole nobody's intellectual-property. > > (to remind you, in a court of law, the judge(s) go by the law > > of the land, not by the GPL). > > > > Linus' attitudes are irrelevant: they only matter in the context > > of GNU/Linux, for those wishing to copy, distribute or modify > > code/binary that includes his Copyrighted/licensed work. > > > > Amnon Shiloh -- the HUJI MOSIX group. > > > > > > > > Oded > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Amnon Shiloh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:32 AM > > > Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module > > > > > > > > > > Oleg Goldshmidt <ogoldshmidt(at-nospam)computer.org Wrote: > > > > > > > > > One recent controversy involved MOSIX, who allegedly violated GPL by > > > > > hacking the kernel itself rather than sticking to writing modules. > > > > > > > > We in the MOSIX team did not violate any copyright or do anything > illegal: > > > > It is true that parts of our software did not comply with the GPL, > > > > but there was no reason they should have. > > > > > > > > The software we released in the first versions of MOSIX for > Linux-2.2.x > > > > could be divided to 5 different categories: > > > > > > > > 1) Some user sources - GPL (although they didn't have to be so); > > > > 2) Modifications to existing Linux kernel files - GPL; > > > > 3) New kernel files that #include or even borrow a few lines > > > > from the Linux kernel - GPL; > > > > 4) New kernel files, mainly header-files (#include) that do not > #include > > > > or otherwise use a single character from the Linux kernel - > > > > These had a dual-license: > > > > a) GPL for the world > > > > b) private for our own use as authors > > > > 5) Binary code (eg. module) derived from our sources and contained no > > > single > > > > character from GPL-code and did not even #include any GPL'd file, > only > > > > headers from category #4 used in our private/owner capacity. > > > > > > > > Since our binary module did not contain anything from Linux, we could > > > issue > > > > it in any way we pleased: we did not even need to consider the GPL or > > > > obtain any license or permission from anybody whatsoever. > > > > > > > > Amnon Shiloh -- the HUJI MOSIX group. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
