Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]

[Andre Hedrick]

We can make up the Monica Public License too, but because it is GPL, your
added restrictions of whatever are NULL and VOID.  So Creosote Public
License, is an effective restriction that is not allowed in GPL.

All your copyright under GPL grants you copyright, all other terms are in
the license and adding anything to it is not allowed.

Adding your views in how it should be view is your opinion nothing more.
It has no legal bases and is only random noise to promote a wider grey
line and more confusion.

There is no standing legal decision in a court of law you can point to to
use as a referrence for case law or brief/opinion from the position,
officer of the court.

So lets add the Rent License, you pay rent to use the GPL code I have
published.  Anybody who has ever stored any data on an IDE/ATA/SATA device
or ATAPI attached to HOST connected to SFF cable headers of 40 pin or SFF
cable PHY headers, must pay me 0.001 cents per byte transfered regardless
of direction of success.

This on top of GPL is a usage restriction.

Have a cold shower dude, Creosote reminds me of Slick Willy.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 11:38 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > The thing that is trying to cross the boundary is the kernel license
> > so what matters is if the thing which you believe should be GPLed is
> > separable or not.
> 
> Forget boundaries, Larry. Consider the case of the Creosote Public
> Licence to which I referred before. That one required you to bathe daily
> in creosote and release _all_ your future work under the same licence;
> separate works or not.
> 
> If you don't comply with the licence, you may not use the original work.
> It's that simple -- whatever the requirements of the licence are, you
> obey them or you don't have a licence.
> 
> In the case of the CPL, it isn't a crime for you to publish your own
> non-derived work under another licence, or one day to decide not to
> bathe in creosote -- but it does place you in violation of the Creosote
> Public Licence and hence mean that continued use of the _original_ work
> is a violation of its copyright; and therefore a criminal offence.
> 
> This is not about whether a licence _can_ demand this. We know it can --
> it can demand the ritual sacrifice of your first-born, and all that
> means is that if you don't agree, you don't get to use the software in
> question¹.
> 
> This is about whether the GPL _does_ demand this. I believe that it
> does, and that the user-space exception and the existence of the LGPL
> make that fact entirely clear.
> 
> -- 
> dwmw2
> 
> ¹ Admittedly, incitement to murder is an offence in most countries
>   but you get the point, and you still wouldn't be permitted to
>   use the software if you didn't do it :)
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/