Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

[Rahul Sundaram]

Les Mikesell 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.

>> "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.

>> Copyright 101. Intention of the copyright holders are very very relevant.
> 
> What?  If something isn't a derivative work, the copyright of the thing 
> it isn't derived from has no bearing.

You haven't show it isn't derived work. Don't try to win an argument 
using circular logic.

>> You claimed
>>
>> "Deliberate? _Everything_ that is not the GPL is incompatible with the 
>> GPL."
>>
>> This is a clear lie. There is no excuse for it.
> 
> On the contrary, the whole point of the GPL and its 'work-as-a-whole' 
> clause was to be incompatible with every other license.   It is by 
> design and the lie is to claim otherwise. 

It however is not incompatible with every other license as clearly 
demonstrated by

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Keep burying your head deeper in the sand.

  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 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

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 ;-).

Rahul