Cisco Cisco IPICS Release 2.1 Licensing Information

>

> I find it suspicious that whether or not the GPL would apply to the

> plug-in depends on the mindset of the author.

 

The above makes no sense if you think of it as a "plug in" issue, but it

makes sense if you think of it as a "derived work" issue, along with

taking "intent" into account.

 

I know lawyers tend to not like the notion of "intent", because it brings

in another whole range of gray areas, but it's obviously a legal reality.

 

Ok, enough blathering from me. I'd just like to finish off with a few

comments, just to clarify my personal stand:

 

- I'm obviously not the only copyright holder of Linux, and I did so on

  purpose for several reasons. One reason is just because I hate the

  paperwork and other cr*p that goes along with copyright assignments.

 

  Another is that I don't much like copyright assignments at all: the

  author is the author, and he may be bound by my requirement for GPL,

  but that doesn't mean that he should give his copyright to me.

 

  A third reason, and the most relevant reason here, is that I want

  people to _know_ that I cannot control the sources. I can write you a

  note to say that "for use XXX, I do not consider module YYY to be a

  derived work of my kernel", but that would not really matter that much.

  Any other Linux copyright holder might still sue you.

 

  This third reason is what makes people who otherwise might not trust me

  realize that I cannot screw people over. I am bound by the same

  agreement that I require of everybody else, and the only special status

  I really have is a totally non-legal issue: people trust me.

 

  (Yes, I realize that I probably would end up having more legal status

  than most, even apart from the fact that I still am the largest single

  copyright holder, if only because of appearances)

 

- I don't really care about copyright law itself. What I care about is my

  own morals. Whether I'd ever sue somebody or not (and quite frankly,

  it's the last thing I ever want to do - if I never end up talking to

  lawyers in a professional context, I'll be perfectly happy. No

  disrespect intended) will be entirely up to whether I consider what

  people do to me "moral" or not. Which is why intent matters to me a

  lot - both the intent of the person/corporation doign the infringement,

  _and_ the intent of me and others in issues like the module export

  interface.

 

  Another way of putting this: I don't care about "legal loopholes" and