From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C111381F3 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:40:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EFBBE0A53; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:40:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17F7EE09CD for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:40:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c11so4582167wgh.20 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:40:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LxgbWhMpU4cuUNFcw0HB82yyZbMhchePAjvpKazgupU=; b=S3DDmyLVgVdeeb0RUQujxYqtqqo3e30PZU2g6dC83MjoNIHQ9Lkdy8Y5zXQMutgIYW DL0pLVYlypdsGNiXZB6H0kZM8M/Vhw33R1itDSa+CBDi1HgHlcsl1Z1STCIeRKrqTLI5 e8qHB55Wr8SNn1F6oPImgPq4A2PgSrMpVbhMyjA6g1T6qL3rT02+sKng5wRgrGENgpBZ JyVgJfF8WpRFoRwAnldMrMU6XBkwmJOVB25jkpmiBK81FIWv7VAD2GrlSNaY4r4tz425 qIiBS/rzOruVWxF7fvA5FE2k4bNgDtDC+krBhTYzKEHD2kqHp+wa+QolpOlzXDHSMa9l QbEw== X-Received: by 10.194.95.10 with SMTP id dg10mr7400104wjb.36.1377636022601; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.0.41] (196-210-127-149.dynamic.isadsl.co.za. [196.210.127.149]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mb7sm120796wic.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <521D0DE1.2010104@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:36:49 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130809 Thunderbird/17.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Optional /usr merge in Gentoo References: <439435.46090.bm@smtp104.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <521C42BA.8020201@gmail.com> <521c5afb.YPRgKxBo0FA+VIpR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <521C6539.1020804@gmail.com> <521c6c8e.2e4CKLbW/r8l63fJ%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> In-Reply-To: <521c6c8e.2e4CKLbW/r8l63fJ%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7893d78b-28f7-445b-a5bf-6fda4916e8e1 X-Archives-Hash: cd60c4b2b04425ea2dbc7395f02fda88 On 27/08/2013 11:08, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>> Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed >>> source than with a license that gives more freedom than the GPL? But >>> you are correct that the problem seem to be humans and not a license text. >> >> You are aware that the GPL was not really intended to be used together >> with other licenses? It was really intended to create an entire >> operating system, all of which was 100% licensed as GPL, all of which >> comprise an original work written from scratch > > But it has been proven that you cannot create a 100% GPL OS. > More than 50% of all Linux distros are under different licenses... > >> Stallman never makes this claim as bluntly as I've said it here, but >> it's the only intelligent reading of his intent as far as I can make >> out. This is why so many arguments arise over the GPL, the wording of >> that license was not really intended to have it co-exist with other >> licenses. > > Stallman does not look at reality. The first GCC version in 1986 has been > published under something I call GPLv0 and this license did not permit a legal > use of the GCC in public. > > The license was later converted to GPLv1 by using proposals I made but > Stallman still only talks about what has been in GPLv0. I didn't bring this up to discuss fine points of licenses. I brought it up for those who might want to understand what the GPL is intended to do; that can only be truly understood by determining what Stallman intended. The GPL is a reflection of Stallman's intent, and can only be truly understood in that light. Whether the legal wording accurately matches his intent is another matter altogether. I personally feel it doesn't, won't and cannot, for reasons of psychology and philosophy, not for reasons of technology or law. What the GPL tries to do and how it does it is quite foreign to most who practice law. Humans don't like foreign concepts. Heck, GPL-2 doesn't even remotely read like something that came off a lawyer's desk. > >>> There is nothing non-void in the GPL that stops you from distributing binaries. >> >> That's a question of packaging and bundling, which is not covered by the >> GPL. But kernel code and kernel modules are not mere bundles, they are >> derivative works by virtue of how tightly they integrate with the >> kernel, and how the code can only ever run unchanged on Linux. > > If a kernel uses ZFS, you have to decide on whether the kernel is a derivative > work of ZFS or whether just a collective work exists. > > _Using_ ZFS definitely does not make ZFS a derivative work. I never said it did. I was concentrating on those parts of ZFS that interact with kernel internals - that might not be been entirely clear You are making a spurious claim by saying "you have to decide on whether the kernel is a derivative work of ZFS or ..." In what possible way could the entire Linux kernel be considered a derivative work of ZFS? That doesn't make any sense. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com