From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23971 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 18:28:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23962 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2002 18:28:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.dberlin.org) (151.204.251.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2002 18:28:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by www.dberlin.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E8410667EA; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Scott Moser Cc: Fernando Nasser , Subject: Re: GDB plugin proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00396.txt.bz2 > > My feeling is that this is really comparable to the linux kernel. I > was under the impression that RMS had made comments that the binary only > kernel modules wouldn't be legal, except that Linus explicitly allowed > them. RMS's viewpoint isn't legally relevant. He may be right. He may be wrong. He claims he's right, but that doesn't make it so. He'd *like* to be right, but that also doesn't make it so. Certainly, anything related to law that RMS spouts should be taken with a *large* grain of salt. > (I'm sure there are lawyers that get good laughs out of > discussions like this, similar to me laughing at IP lawyers attempts to > understand coding ) Watch out, some of us soon-to-be IP lawyers are coders as well. Muhahahahah --Dan