Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Les Mikesell]

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:
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/d5af1cc0012c3bec?
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.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

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 
gpl component.

> 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.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com