.02 (but I agree with you.... Microsoft plays the legal game like noone
else... Unfortunately, they also play the illegal game like noone else.)
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Darren Reed wrote:
> I'm sure all of you are aware of the "Halloween Document", URLS:
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html
> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28215,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh
>
> Given the attention of Microsoft, I think it would be prudent if
> the Linux kernel was reviewed for compliance with the GPL. Having
> read some of the .c files in kernels as recent as 2.1.122, I am
> under the impression that not all of the source code in the
> distribution is in fact GPL'd and that which isn't would be in
> direct conflict of the GPL itself. If I was a legal eagle, I might
> have more idea about whether or not that's grounds for a case, and
> if so, who would be in a position to take such action.
>
> To give you an example, the first .c file I looked at was kernel/dma.c
> which has the following:
>
> /* $Id: dma.c,v 1.7 1994/12/28 03:35:33 root Exp root $
> * linux/kernel/dma.c: A DMA channel allocator. Inspired by linux/kernel/irq.c.
> *
> * Written by Hennus Bergman, 1992.
> *
> * 1994/12/26: Changes by Alex Nash to fix a minor bug in /proc/dma.
> * In the previous version the reported device could end up being wrong,
> * if a device requested a DMA channel that was already in use.
> * [It also happened to remove the sizeof(char *) == sizeof(int)
> * assumption introduced because of those /proc/dma patches. -- Hennus]
> */
>
> To me this implies that "Hennus Bergman" wrote that file and hence owns
> the copyright to it and that the file is not in fact placed under GPL.
>
> A quick count reveals 4000+ files in the linux kernel source tree, with
> around 1000 actually having the word "GNU" in them. Some 300 or so
> have the word "GPL" in them.
>
> Whilst this might be just a "nit", if I were part of Linux and with Linux
> coming under the spotlight more and more, I would think it prudent for all
> involved if any anonmalies were quickly resolved. I don't think comments
> such as the following are particularly "bright":
>
> * This code is heavily based on the code on the old ip_fw.c code; see below for
> * copyrights and attributions of the old code. This code is basically GPL.
>
> Reading later down in the file, it clearly contains a different license
> to the GPL which is in fact against the license - unless permission has
> been granted by the FSF for such to be allowed (in which case it would
> probably be prudent to mention that somewhere).
>
> To me, this indicates that all current, distributed, versions of Linux
> are in fact in contradiction to the GPL license.
>
> I don't mean to start a flame war, but if I was Microsoft and I was looking
> for a way to take Linux out of the picture, this might (somehow) provide
> them with the necessary first step. I don't want to see that any more than
> anyone else here. I think a new release of 2.0 and 2.1 needs to be made
> with at least the required corrections as suggested by the file "COPYING"
> in the root Linux kernel source code directory.
>
> Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight, _we_ all know what it meant to mean,
> but we're not lawyers and if they can get OJ freed, then perhaps they could
> argue Linux (as it is now) contradicts its own license. As for what that
> means, who knows ?
>
> Darren
>
> -
> 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.tux.org/lkml/
>
/*
Paul Duncan p_duncan@efn.org Indifference will be the downfall
http://www.efn.org/~p_duncan of humanity, but who cares? - fortune
"in short, all known bugs should be "I'm to blame; I wonder just who
fixed, but hey, what else is new?" made the rules up for this game."
- Linus Torvalds - nine inch nails
*/
-
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.tux.org/lkml/