Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]
From: Valdis . Kletnieks
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 03:50:58 EST
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 00:10:27 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
> Nope, you made threats.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Erik Andersen wrote:
> I'll go even farther, and say that one might call the GPL_ONLY
> symbols an "effective technological measure" that "effectively
> controls access to a work" and "effectively protects a right of a
to which you replied:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:40:52 -0700, Andre Hedrick said:
> Go have your "DADDY" write another legal letter for you and send it my
> way. I will be happy to shove it down your pie hole.
Erik postulates a "one MIGHT" legal argument, and gets threatened with bodily
harm? I think you've given up any moral high ground regarding threats.
You may want to just take a few days off - you're apparently not attached to
the same reality as the rest of us:
> If one reads ./include/linux/module.h
>
> It clearly states any license is acceptable.
Maybe if you apply the Bible Code to it, it's clearly stated, but all I see is
a reference that the MODULE_LICENSE macro will accept a parameter of
"Proprietary", and then goes on to say "it's there so the module in question
can be treated properly - just like a Jew in Warsaw in 1941 had to wear a star".
There. I said it. The esteemed Mr Godwin says we're now free to get on with our lives.
Attachment:
pgp00001.pgp
Description: PGP signature