Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ?

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3570 bytes --]

In <1182160706.208857@xnews001>, Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs.ext@nsn.com> writes:
>anon wrote:
>
>> Linux Modules uses : MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>> alone with some files having the spelled out comment lines too.
>
>That's a different beast. This is used to enforce GPL lincensed kernel
>modules. It results in a _runtime_ check. When a module with a
>non-compatible license is loaded, it will taint the kernel and you will not
>get any support from kernel hackers in case of problems.
>
That's why the OSI/FSF requested the NYU group the creators of the 
GNU/AdaCore Ada to add the "pragma License" statement with its 
option of "( GPL )".  But NYU or Adacore never complete the link to 
the _runtine_ checker. which is what I stated in my second reply about 
this.  First reply, showed source code that tested the "pragma License" 
on the GNAT compiler.

     Y O U   N E E D  T O   R E A D  ! ! !   
     B E F O R E  A N S W E R I N G  ! ! !


And for the rest ask a LAYWER. I have testing what I say in court and 
I won, The case was based on GPL version 1 to Version 2 policy.  They 
thought like you that the source would still be under the old GPL version 
1 but when OSI/FSF adopted version 2.  They had to comply with version 
2 and they did not. And it cost them BIG time when the judge made his 
desision. 

Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to 
GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could 
go back and write a new Linux license.



E N O U G H   S A I D   A B O U T   T H I S ! ! ! 
S I N C E   T H I S   G R O U P   I S   A B O U T   A D A 
N O T  G P L   O R   O S I / F S F  O R   E V E N   L I N U X  ! ! !

>> And as for GPL 2 software adopting GPL 3. Once the GPL version 3 is
>> finalize, the GPL version 2 is no longer legal.
>
>That's simply wrong.
>
>> If you read GPL 2 there is a paragraph that states you must adopt the
>updated version.
>
>No, there's not. Read §9 again, it's the only one that addresses GPL
>versions:
>
>"  9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
>of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
>be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
>address new problems or concerns.
>
>Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
>specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
>later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
>either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
>Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
>this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
>Foundation."
>
>> So if Linus does not fully adopt GPL 2 then he must write his own License
>> for Linux. 
>
>No, he doesn't need to.
>
>> Now there are some that says that the GPL 3 is dead without Linux.
>
>?? There's more free software out there than the Linux kernel.
>
>> And SUN with Solaris is trying to push Linux to GPL 3.
>
>How could Sun/Solaris push a Linux license change???
>
>> Sun has it reasons for wanting GPL 3.
>
>Sure they have. Linus has his reasons to keep GPL2. So what?
>
>Bye...
>
>        Dirk
>-- 
>Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
>Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
>Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
>Wanheimerstraße 68      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
>D-40468 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
>GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net