From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:21:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:21:27 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:48636 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:21:27 -0400 Subject: Re: business models [was patent stuff] From: Alan Cox To: "Adam J. Richter" Cc: gilad@benyossef.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm@bitmover.com, phillips@bonn-fries.net In-Reply-To: <200205281713.KAA22774@freya.yggdrasil.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 28 May 2002 19:22:16 +0100 Message-Id: <1022610136.4124.131.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 18:13, Adam J. Richter wrote: > You could license all programs that consist entirely of > free software. That way, BSD, LGPL, and MPL software that did > not link in proprietary software would be allowed too, but your > example of a proprietary program that linked in the BSD'ed > libpatent.o/c would not be covered by this permission. Define "free software" using only legally defined phrases which have precedent. In fact put four people in a room and get them to define free software. > software would address issues like GPL'ed software that contains > content that is GPL compatible but not GPL'ed, future versions of If its linked then it is GPL in the linked form, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to link it Alan