RE: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing

Andrey Berezin (dron@multimedia.ru)
Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:50:57 +0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Andrey Berezin: "RE: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing"
Previous message: Mike Black: "Error locking mailbox"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> [mailto:owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu]On Behalf Of
> linker@nightshade.ml.org
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 1998 12:21 AM
> To: Tim Smith
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu; kde@lists.netcentral.net;
> gnome-hackers@nuclecu.unam.mx
> Subject: Re: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing
>
>
>
> Here's the counterexample:
>
> A group of free software hardcores writes 'FreeWord'. We release this very
> nice word processor under the GPL. It's so good that M$ wants to use it.
> But the GPL prevents them from propritaryising it, or so we thought:
>
> Microsoft makes a copy of FreeWord called M$freeword. Then they port it
> to windows. Then they start adding functions like read_M$_worddoc(),
> decrypt_propritary_M$_fileformats(), play_well_with_other_M$apps(),
> descease_random_crash_freq(), enhance_FW_GUI() to their standard windows
> libs. These functions are designed to 'enhance' FreeWord, they are closed
> source and propritary. They are only distributed with the $199 Win '99
> upgrade. They may not be copied or modified.
>
> Then they sell copies of FreeWord for $100, and on the CD they include
> their modified sources. Their modifications mostly consist of calls to
> those above functions. Although it is under the GPL, it is useless without
> the '99 upgrade. All of their enhancements are propritary, and the only
> advantage that the GPL had here over a BSD licence is that it made it a
> bit tougher. The GPL is supposted to prevent embrace and extend. If we
> allow 'system libs' then this can be circumvented.
>
> Furthermore, the wording of the current GPL could doublely affect the
> Linux Kernel: One could argue that *ANYTHING* linked into the kernel is a
> system libary. And any bozo w/ a cd burner could call himself a
> distribution maker.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Tim Smith wrote:
>
> > At 04:47 PM 7/12/98 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >They are using it to prevent a free software project becoming dependant
> > >on a non free product that they can't modify and isnt free. Their
> > >argument is precisely identical to the case where I produce a binary
> > >only module the kernel depends on for functionality - say the
> networking
> > >and say "its ok, its not being charged for - look at KDE you said that
> > >was ok".
> >
> > [NOTE: many of the messages in this thread are sent to several
> individuals
> > and three mailing lists. I've been deleting the individuals, except
> > sometimes for the person I'm directly responding to, and leaving all the
> > lists. Is this the appropriate thing to do, or should I be sending to
> > everyone the original was sent to?]
> >
> > 1. So what happens if I try to GPL a program I write for
> Windows NT? I end
> > up with a free software project dependent on a non-free product that you
> > can't modify and is not free. The GPL allows this, under the "major
> > components of the OS" exception, so there is no doubt that I
> can *legally*
> > do this. Are you saying it is *morally* wrong for me to do so,
> and the free
> > software community should reject my program and get upset if I use other
> > people's free software in my free project for NT? If not, how is KDE
> > different? My project is free GPL'ed software that runs on any
> system that
> > has the proprietary non-free Windows NT installed, and KDE is
> free GPL'ed
> > software that runs on any system that has the proprietary non-free Qt
> > library installed. (Remember, I'm asking about a moral difference, not a
> > legal difference, so let's not get into the issue of shared linking vs.
> > static linking, and things like that).
> >
> > 2. As far as I've been able to tell, I can legally make
> binary-only kernel
> > modules and distribute them. It would annoy Linus, and so if I
> end up using
> > Linux in the embedded system I might be working on someday at work, I'll
> > make sure all my proprietary changes are in an application, not a kernel
> > module, but as far as I can tell from reading the licenses and taking
> > copyright and contract law classes in law school, and talking to lawyers
> > and law school professors, I'm doing it this way because I am a nice guy
> > who doesn't want to piss off Linus. :-)
> >
> > --Tim Smith
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> > Please read the FAQ at
http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

Next message: Andrey Berezin: "RE: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing"
Previous message: Mike Black: "Error locking mailbox"