Re: "GPL weasels and the atheros stink"

2007-09-02 Thread Jonathan A. George
Matthew Jacob wrote: > Question #1: Is it _ethical_ (legality aside) to take someone else's actively maintained work (for example an OpenBSD driver) and make changes which can not be shared/used by the original developer/maintainer? Answer #1: Considering that the whole reason I personally

Re: "GPL weasels and the atheros stink"

2007-09-02 Thread Jonathan A. George
While the title of Marc's email might be construed as flame bait, it is disappointing to see that the generally very valid points he has made (as both a BSD _and_ _GPL_ developer) are being ignored. To make it simple try answering these two questions: Question #1: Is it _ethical_

Re: GPL weasels and the atheros stink

2007-09-02 Thread Jonathan A. George
While the title of Marc's email might be construed as flame bait, it is disappointing to see that the generally very valid points he has made (as both a BSD _and_ _GPL_ developer) are being ignored. To make it simple try answering these two questions: Question #1: Is it _ethical_

Re: GPL weasels and the atheros stink

2007-09-02 Thread Jonathan A. George
Matthew Jacob wrote: Question #1: Is it _ethical_ (legality aside) to take someone else's actively maintained work (for example an OpenBSD driver) and make changes which can not be shared/used by the original developer/maintainer? Answer #1: Considering that the whole reason I personally

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Jonathan A. George
> ...The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a license statement to binary module developers... As noted repeatedly a symbol prefix doesn't appear to carry any legal weight under U.S. law. In fact the GPL copyright notice is appear legally limited to the granting of *copy* *rights* per U.S. copyright law

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-03 Thread Jonathan A. George
snip ...The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a license statement to binary module developers... snip As noted repeatedly a symbol prefix doesn't appear to carry any legal weight under U.S. law. In fact the GPL copyright notice is appear legally limited to the granting of *copy* *rights* per U.S.

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Jonathan A. George
As an observation: The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all exported symbols would appear to carry equal weight; thus making the

Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

2005-02-02 Thread Jonathan A. George
As an observation: The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all exported symbols would appear to carry equal weight; thus making the