[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Moglen's "all good faith"

Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:33:08AM +0100,:

 > On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
 > [...]
 > > > GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's "compliance lab" didn't
 > > > purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux?
 > >
 > > Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux - it doesn't contribute.
 > Well,
 > <quote author=Moglen>
 > The Foundation notes that despite the alarmist statements SCO's
 > employees have made, the Foundation has not been sued, nor has
 > SCO, despite our requests, identified any work whose copyright the
 > Foundation holds-including all of IBM's modifications to the kernel
 > for use with IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the
 > Foundation by IBM--that SCO asserts infringes its rights in any
 > way.
 > </quote>
 > So how come that the FSF's "compliance lab" didn't purify the
 > kernel of *GNU*/Linux for IBM mainframes at least?

1. That still does  not make FSF the owner of  the whole linux kernel;
   only those parts  which have been assigned to the  FSF are owned by
   the FSF.

2. The linux is not a GNU project and that is why we call it the linux
   kernel; and the GNU/Linux operating system, else we would have been
   calling it GNU Linux; (like GNU Bash and GNU readline and whatever)

3. FSF's ownership  of parts  of the  kernel means FSF  is one  of the
   copyright holders in the collective work called the linux kernel.
BTW, if  you have  problems with statements  made by Eben  Moglen, you
might be better  off clarifying things with him  direct rather than on
this list.

Mahesh T. Pai

Reply to: