'Lionel Elie Mamane'
lionel at mamane.lu
Tue Sep 6 18:57:01 CEST 2005
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 04:52:55PM +0200, Zeljko Vrba wrote:
> 'Lionel Elie Mamane' wrote:
>>Please do so. I'm curious how you will handle:
>> 1) Pointers being passed
>> By copying the whole address space back and forth at each call and
>> return? "Morally" that's not running in separate address spaces!
> Make the programs share their _data_ segments, but NOT their _code_
> segments. GPL is about _code_, not about the _data_ created and used by
> the code.
The pointer may point to code. It can be a pointer to a function. For
a callback, for example.
> I don't have all details worked-out, but none of them seem really
> unsurmountable. In the extreme case, nothing that couldn't be solved
> with little kernel-side work and support.
>> By all means, please follow through on this plan. It will be very fun
>> to watch!
> In what way "fun"? :)
1) Scientifically, see interesting problems tackled.
2) From a slightly more "Schadenfreude" perspective, watch the legal
discussions and / or flamewars it will create. White papers flying
around! Eben Moglen saying your mechanism doesn't circumvent the
GPL, you disagreeing and arguing back, a new GPL revision coming
out to address the "loophole" you have demonstrated (if it gets
settled that it _is_ a loophole), etc. You saying that the revised
GPL version doesn't count, because not derivative work and thus
legally cannot enforce limitations.
Fun to watch from the sidelines, cheering on, etc ;-)
> In any case, Werner will run out of his only reasonable argument
> (IMHO) for not supporting PKCS#11 and users will (hopefully) profit
I find the following argument very reasonable: I have no interest in
implementing PKCS#11 and nobody has stepped up to pay me to do it.
He won't run out of *this* argument ;-)
More information about the Gnupg-users