Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Timothy Miller]

Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:24:58 -0400
> Marc Boucher <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think that Rik is right when saying that the key information that 
> > should be conveyed is who is responsible for providing support. The 
> > wording should be kept neutral, without negative connotation nor 
> > religious bias.
>
>
> Perhaps others on this list are getting as tired as I am of your using
> the term "religious bias" as a negative connotation against people who
> support and protect the open source nature of Linux.   Maybe you could
> at least pretend to respect the people who you supposedly apologized to. 


Quite true.  This isn't about religion.  It's about people's right to 
choose how they license their the code they write.

This is about copyright law and our right to choose what others we can 
do with what we have copyrighted.

While I agree that there is a political agenda behind the GPL, we have 
to respect the rights of those who choose to apply it as a license to 
their creative works.

And furthermore, having a political agenda is not inherently wrong.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/