linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47AB1BFA.2020801@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:25:54 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

Alan Cox wrote:
>> No.  Holders of Linux copyrights would have to prove that the
>> proprietary code is derived from the kernel.  They have the burden of
>> proof, and defence needs merely show that their arguments are wrong.
>>     
>
> Wrong again. In civil law in the USA and most of europe the test is
> "balance of probability".
>   


No, I'm right.  The word "proof" is appropriate in context.  (I write in
plain English, not Legalese.)  I certainly didn't intend "proof" to mean
"mathematically certain."  Anybody who pretends that proof in court
means that must be ignorant or trying to deceive.
--
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/