LINUX.ORG.RU

История изменений

Исправление cumvillain, (текущая версия) :

Да, и чо? Это так же, как в США низзя кодеки для видео поставлять в дистрах из-за патентов. Но всем посрать. К GPL это отношения не имеет, это именно про удаление защиты от копирайта.

Ещё как имеет:

Linus, however, believes that GPL-only exports are significant.

I’ve talked to a lawyer or two, and (a) there’s an absolutely huge difference and (b) they liked it.

The fact is, the law isn’t a blind and mindless computer that takes what you say literally. Intent matters a LOT. And using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it’s an internal interface is very meaningful indeed.

One of the lawyers said that it was a much better approach than trying to make the license explain all the details - codifying the intention in the code itself is not only more flexible, but a lot less likely to be misunderstood.

He also points out that circumventing a GPL-only export requires an explicit action, making it clear that the resulting copyright infringement was a deliberate act.

Именно по этой причине флажок в nixos по умолчанию выключен.

Исправление cumvillain, :

Да, и чо? Это так же, как в США низзя кодеки для видео поставлять в дистрах из-за патентов. Но всем посрать. К GPL это отношения не имеет, это именно про удаление защиты от копирайта.

Ещё как имеет:

Linus, however, believes that GPL-only exports are significant.

I’ve talked to a lawyer or two, and (a) there’s an absolutely huge difference and (b) they liked it.

The fact is, the law isn’t a blind and mindless computer that takes what you say literally. Intent matters a LOT. And using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it’s an internal interface is very meaningful indeed.

One of the lawyers said that it was a much better approach than trying to make the license explain all the details - codifying the intention in the code itself is not only more flexible, but a lot less likely to be misunderstood.

He also points out that circumventing a GPL-only export requires an explicit action, making it clear that the resulting copyright infringement was a deliberate act.

Исходная версия cumvillain, :

Да, и чо? Это так же, как в США низзя кодеки для видео поставлять в дистрах из-за патентов. Но всем посрать. К GPL это отношения не имеет, это именно про удаление защиты от копирайта.

Ещё как имеет:

Linus, however, believes that GPL-only exports are significant.

I’ve talked to a lawyer or two, and (a) there’s an absolutely huge difference and (b) they liked it.

The fact is, the law isn’t a blind and mindless computer that takes what you say literally. Intent matters a LOT. And using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it’s an internal interface is very meaningful indeed.

One of the lawyers said that it was a much better approach than trying to make the license explain all the details - codifying the intention in the code itself is not only more flexible, but a lot less likely to be misunderstood.

He also points out that circumventing a GPL-only export requires an explicit action, making it clear that the resulting copyright infringement was a deliberate act.