On Sunday 16 November 2003 15:35, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > On Sunday 16 November 2003 12:51, Omer Zak wrote: > > Actually, Ilan has a point here. > > > > 1. His salesmanship skills could use a small upgrade - by presenting the > > argument of avoiding MS-Windows in the first place, he'd get more > > cooperation than flames. > > I don't think so. I couldn't care less if he or his comapny used MS Windows > for writing closed source applications or not. > > > 2. If Linus allows use of closed code Kernel modules with Linux and they > > probably are obfuscation champions of the Linux world, then Ilan > > should be entitled to ask about the subject. > > Linus allows no such thing. He simply noted that the fact that your module > is linked against a Linux kernel does not automatically make it derived > work, and therefore whatever license the Linux kernel is under is > irrevelavnt. Here are his exact words: > > "I'm a complete non-believer in binary modules", Torvalds said, > reiterating what has become the conventional wisdom of the Linux-kernel > mailing list and experienced Linux support people. "Most houses that use > Linux a lot say that they won't support binary modules because they > can't. They may work, but you're not getting the full advantage of > Linux", he added. On the legal side, there is no specific exception for > binary-only modules. "They're borderline legal. There's nothing in the > license that says you're excused from the GPL". >
There is quite a lot of debate whether dynamic linking and binary only kernel modules actually vaiolate the GPL and at what instances. I don't belive this has actually gone to court yet (there was a long thread on this subject not long ago, partly my fault I'm afraid). Each one interprets the GPL license as comfortable curently. Anyway I belive that point is not exactly related to the question as whatever program the company is writing doesn't have to be linked against anything (probably glibc or whatever gcc is using, which is lgpl iirc). > http://www.linuxjournal.com//article.php?sid=6152 > > > 3. And, as Ilan said, the Linux-IL mailing list is Linux-IL, not GNU-IL > > (or GPL-IL), RMS's insistence upon the term GNU/Linux withstanding. > > Well, in case anyone cares, I think the question was on topic. I just think > it was stupid. > > Gilad -- Micha Feigin [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]
