Kororaa and the GPL - Update 1 [LWN.net]

Kororaa and the GPL - Update 1

Posted May 23, 2006 19:02 UTC (Tue) by gvy (guest, #11981)
Parent article: Kororaa and the GPL - Update 1

Again... those losers who would just whine about some violations without backing their claims with at least some analysis are just that -- losers to be ignored. Sorry for them.

So Chris, if you happen to read this, just relax. They're not worth it.

(Log in to post comments)

Kororaa and the GPL - Update 1

Posted May 23, 2006 21:31 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Wow, this is a very large assumption to make about the developers of the
linux kernel code who object to this kind of linking and distribution.
Surely the developers of the Linux kernel are the default authorities on
the topic, and therefore claims which deviate from theirs are those which
require justification.

Kororaa and the GPL - Update 1

Posted May 23, 2006 22:51 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

Let's see the quote from the actual letter:

"Now, what you're doing when you combine the binary-only modules and the kernel together into a distribution or LiveCD is _not_ "mere aggregation". That's clearly a coherent whole; a collective work and not just a bunch of stuff which happens to be sharing the same disk. [...] So while the binary-only modules _themselves_ are only 'questionable' on their own, the distribution of them _with_ a kernel is clearly a violation of the license of the kernel."

I don't see how someone's expertise in Linux development translates into expertise in distinguishing derived works from "mere aggregations". It's a matter of copyright law, and Linux is not written by lawyers.

Ultimately, copyright law is interpreted but courts rather than by copyright holders. Some free software we are enjoying today would not have existed if copyright holders were allowed to amend or re-interpret copyrights retroactively. Most prominent example is OpenSSH, which is based on the last free version of SSH.

Kororaa and the GPL - Update 1

Posted May 24, 2006 5:19 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

And I do not disagree with you; the nature of derived works does
merit discussion in this case. What I disagreed with is that the
relevant kernel developers are "whining losers" who have not considered
the situation at all. Dismissing them summarily without any
argument is at best belittling, and at worst complete disinformation.

It is a small point.