Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Andre Hedrick]

I quit ... all of you win.

Just remember, had OSL been in place IBM would not need to exercise
patents against SCO.  Caldera and Canopy Group would be liable for their
own pollution of the code stream.

Next OSl provides a means to recover legal fees for the author, and GPL
does not.  So unless you have a FAT WALLET, you can not defend you works.
Oh yeah, just give all your copyright works to FSF and they will defend it
and get any of the finacial rewards and you get ZERO!

Later ...

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Adam Sampson wrote:

> Andre Hedrick <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > OSL 1 and 2 are a preferred choice as they are slowly creaping into
> > the kernel.
> 
> The problem with the OSL is that it requires mirror sites to get
> anybody downloading OSL-licensed software from them to explicitly
> agree to the license; this is simply not practical, and the result is
> that it is not feasible to freely mirror OSL-licensed software. This
> hasn't been fixed with OSL 2, and as such it would be an exceptionally
> poor choice for any piece of software that you want to be widely
> distributed, which certainly includes Linux.
> 
> -- 
> Adam Sampson <azz@xxxxxxxxxx>                        <http://offog.org/>
> 

-
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/