| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> |
| 4 |
>>> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. |
| 5 |
>>> 2. Patching it. |
| 6 |
>>> 3. Linking it with closed source code. |
| 7 |
>>> 4. Distributing the result. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on |
| 12 |
>>> you to show that you were allowed to do it. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't. |
| 17 |
> Selectively quoting... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program |
| 20 |
> except as expressly provided under this License... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Great, then they can copy it under the terms of the license. And |
| 23 |
they're not redistributing the kernel, or any derived work of the |
| 24 |
kernel, so the terms about distributing sources don't apply. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little |
| 27 |
> technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL |
| 28 |
> under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this, |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
So, who cares what they think? They don't get to write the law. When |
| 35 |
Linus says stuff that is smart, I'll admire him for it. When he says |
| 36 |
stuff that is dumb, I'm not afraid to say that the emperor has no |
| 37 |
clothes. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rich |
Archives