Re: Keyspan Firmware fun
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:32:29AM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sigh. This is why Adam decided to take spend his efforts elsewhere.
> Any of these events are unlikely to happen. Linus signed off on the
> (obviously problematic) first one, so he probably just doesn't care.
> No one is going to spend the money for a lawyer (unless the FSF can
> somehow get involved in this, and many people don't trust the lawyers
> from FSF anyway). And Keyspan wants their stuff widely dispersed. I
> can't imagine why they would care what license their binary data is
> under, as long as it waives liability.
What I am saying here, is that I don't think there is a legal problem,
and until told otherwise by someone who I acknolowdge as a better legal
interpreter than I, I am not going to change the code.
> > It's just too big of a architectural change for this to happen in a
> > stable kernel series.
>
> That is a technical objection. You don't seem to care about the legal
> problems. Adam is a copyright holder in this case. He has standing
> to enforce the GPL (though I doubt he'll actually send you a threat
> letter). He is telling you that there is a problem with code you have
> included. It is obviously incompatible, but you choose not to resolve
> it.
Yes it is a technical objection, because I don't believe in Adam's
arguments about his copyright holding in this case. I now understand
why Adam thinks this way about it, but I don't agree with his logic.
And I don't feel like arguing the point, as I have code I would rather
be writing in my free time.
So until proven otherwise by a "trusted by Greg" authority, I am not
going to change it. And since Keyspan is working to resolve this, this
is currently moot.
> It is carefree attitudes like this that caused the lawsuits around BSD.
It is careless statements like this that don't really apply in this case :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Reply to: