On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:54:34AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include <hallo.h> > * Joe Wreschnig [Tue, Jun 15 2004, 09:01:52PM]: > > > > So, problem resolved. No need to remove anything. > > > > At best that solves a third of the problem. What about all the other > > copyright holders of the kernel, have they agreed to link with the > > non-GPLd code? (Before someone tells me kernel developers don't care, or > > "this isn't linking", [0]) And once the copyright issue is dealt with, > > there's still the issue of meeting the DFSG. > > What exactly are you trying to proove with the mentioned link? The same > guesses about guesses about assumptions about expectations as we have on > debian-devel with some confused GPL fans (trying to construct a > DSFG-violation case for free GPLed data files). No, that we have a firm statement from a significant copyright holder that they consider this to be a violation of the GPL, much like we've had from people within Debian experienced in interpreting it. People who are familiar with copyright law will understand the significance of this. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature