Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 03:27:03 UTC 2008
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> No, I'm saying that Linus knew exactly what he meant every time he
>> said modules "use" the kernel services instead of linking with it, and
>> he chose that wording because he also knew exactly what his license
>> said about things that "use" the kernel services. This was his only
>> story in 1995 - well published, not contradicted.
> You have yet to show other instances where he said this. The only
> instance you showed was just in the context of the AFS module and not a
> generic claim. You are well aware of that now.
Are you really reading the contents of this link:
The discussion is in fact generic about modules in general and none of
the parts I quoted had anything to do with AFS. That is mentioned later
as an example where 'it would be rather preposterous to call the Andrew
FileSystem a "derived work" of linux'. So it may not be preposterous to
say that about other modules, just legally and morally wrong for the
reasons he clearly states in general terms.
>>> "I claim that a "binary linux kernel module" is a derived work of the
>>> kernel, and thus has to come with sources."
>> I don't want to believe that the 1995 statements were lies.
> Setting aside that you have not proved your original claim, you also now
> prefer to ignore statements that disprove yours. Reminds me of a ostrich
> burying it's head in the sand.
No, if one version is a lie, I will have no reason to accept other
versions that may just as well be more lies.
> Please show how something can
>> include any GPL-covered work, yet be distributed under different terms
>> if you insist on claiming that.
> I don't have to show anything like that.
You don't, but why make such a claim when you obviously can't back it up?
> You claimed that GPL isn't
> compatible with anything but itself. That is a false claim that easily
> disproved by dozens of licenses that are clearly compatible with it.
Those are licenses that can be usurped by the GPL requirements. They
don't - and can't - retain their terms when included in a work with a
> Don't make blanket claims and then retroactively try to twist it to
> apply your own meaning to it. That is such a obvious ploy visible to
> everyone. Now that I have shown to everyone watching the discussion what
> a obvious troll you are, have a nice day ;-).
I'm not twisting anything. The GPL must apply to the work-as-a-whole.
That's not what I want it to mean. That's just what it says.
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-list