Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:56:02 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Updating real-time and nanokernel maintainersy |
| |
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > If there is, then it should definitely be taken out. First, as Linus > has stated recently (and as has been the policy for a while), the > kernel should avoid having any patented code
That's not true.
The kernel should have no patented code THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LICENSE.
There are several cases where this came up: RCU is one obvious one, but there were also issues with Intel's initial submissions of some of the networking drivers where they didn't want to originally release under the GPL because of worrying about patents they owned.
The email you quote expressly says "unless you can get the patent holder to grant a license". And the RTLinux patents were licensed to GPL'd projects. See the RTLinux "open patent license".
I don't understand why people continually complain about the RTLinux patents. I bet it's because Victor has all the easy charm of Larry McVoy, but I don't see why people still continue to spread obvious mis-information about the situation.
It's doubly discgusting with some of the people who were trying to spread all the FUD and mis-information were doing so because they were themselves doing a non-GPL microkernel, and they complained about how the patents were somehow against the GPL and wanted to get community support by trying to make out the situation to be somehow different from what it was.
I'm not a supporter of software patents, but while I dislike them, I don't dislike them _nearly_ as much as I dislike dishonest people.
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |