OT: Re: [clue-tech] Shame shame

[David L. Anselmi]

Collins Richey wrote:
[...]
> Yeah, the summary is
> 
> 1. non GPL kernel modules are evil, right? (alas, not a no brainer
> question, unless you happen to be RMS or Debian or a righteous kernel
> developer).

[rant about proprietary software that might be useful snipped]

> In less sarcastic mode: I have no objection to the presence of GPL
> software. We all benefit from it greatly. By the same token, I have no
> objection to non GPL software. If you build a better mousetrap (GPL or
> otherwise), the world will beat a pathway to your door, and you won't
> need to cooerce manufacturers and users a la M$.

No, this has nothing to do with the argument about using Free vs. 
non-Free software.  It's about copyright law and licenses to distribute 
copies of software.

Linus licensed the kernel under the GPL.  The GPL says non-GPL kernel 
modules are illegal.[1]

This is about breaking the law and ways to enforce it, not about 
behaving morally.

Dave

1) Linus's interpretation is here: http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735 for 
example.  Unfortunately I don't know of any case law on the subject, 
yet.  But the right interpretation is a discussion for a -legal list, 
not -tech.  And regardless, the kernel API will change frequently and 
without warning--my original point.