[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070203115412.GA15419@thunk.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 06:54:12 -0500
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] alternative aproach to: Ban module license tag string termination trick
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 12:32:08PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> I strongly nak that. If you combine two object files (e.g. foo.o, bar.o)
> that have different licenses, the resulting object file (comb.o) IMHO
> constitutes a combined work, and hence the GPL should be applied to all of
> it. That obviously "does not work" - what good is a GPL comb.o file if you
> don't have the source to bar.o?
Gaaah. This is why it's a bad idea to try to attempt to do GPL
"enforcement" in kernel code. Your reasoning is totally bogus. GPL
is only about distribution, and if a user is building a standalone
module which they never distibute, the provisions of GPL won't apply,
since it's only about distribution, and a user who builds an ATI or
Nvidia module in the privacy of their own home won't be violating the
GPL.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists