On 20 Nov 2002, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le mer 20/11/2002 à 09:12, Mark Mielke a écrit :
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:06:39AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, David McIlwraith wrote:
> > > > How should it? The compiler (specifically, the C preprocessor) includes
> > > > the code, thus it is not the AUTHOR violating the GPL.
> > > If the compiler includes a .h file, it happens because
> > > the programmer told it to do so, using a #include.
> >
> > I was recently re-reading the GPL and I came to the following conclusion:
> >
> > The GPL is only an issue if the software is *distributed* with GPL
> > software. Meaning -- it is not legal to distribute a linux kernel that
>
> Yeah, that's precisely the problem here: the binary-only module is
> distributed with included spinlock code, which *is* GPL.
So if it bugs you so much, why doing you start the process to sue all the
places everyone know the violation exist? First go for the major ones lin
the embedded space. So where is you lawyer and you fat pile of cash to
run you war against the use of Linux in Business?
Now lets wreck the one decent video driver that happens to be closed
source.
Can we as REDMOND ?
Later!
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:33 EST