Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible

[Kyle Moffett]

On Jun 17, 2004, at 16:51, Flavio Stanchina wrote:
> Your argument applies to the SCO case because their code (if there is 
> any, which nobody but SCO still believes is the case) did *not* have a 
> license attached to it that didn't allow modification, redistribution 
> or whatever else the GPL requires; otherwise they wouldn't have 
> trouble demonstrating which code it is they're talking about. So any 
> sane person would understand that they knowingly released it under the 
> GPL: if they'll try to argue that they didn't know the kernel was 
> covered by the GPL, I don't think the judge will go for much less than 
> capital punishment when he stops laughing.

I wasn't discussing those particular firmware files.  I definitely
agree that they must get out of the kernel immediately.  I was
discussing a different piece of code someone was suing over,
sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett


-
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/