From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261890AbTJGIkl (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:40:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261899AbTJGIkl (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:40:41 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.86.99.235]:62351 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261890AbTJGIkk (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:40:40 -0400 Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] From: David Woodhouse To: Larry McVoy Cc: Pascal Schmidt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20031006183857.GA3508@work.bitmover.com> References: <20031006183857.GA3508@work.bitmover.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <1065516037.22491.267.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-2.dwmw2.3) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:40:37 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dwmw2@infradead.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Pentafluge-Mail-From: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 11:38 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > The thing that is trying to cross the boundary is the kernel license > so what matters is if the thing which you believe should be GPLed is > separable or not. Forget boundaries, Larry. Consider the case of the Creosote Public Licence to which I referred before. That one required you to bathe daily in creosote and release _all_ your future work under the same licence; separate works or not. If you don't comply with the licence, you may not use the original work. It's that simple -- whatever the requirements of the licence are, you obey them or you don't have a licence. In the case of the CPL, it isn't a crime for you to publish your own non-derived work under another licence, or one day to decide not to bathe in creosote -- but it does place you in violation of the Creosote Public Licence and hence mean that continued use of the _original_ work is a violation of its copyright; and therefore a criminal offence. This is not about whether a licence _can_ demand this. We know it can -- it can demand the ritual sacrifice of your first-born, and all that means is that if you don't agree, you don't get to use the software in question¹. This is about whether the GPL _does_ demand this. I believe that it does, and that the user-space exception and the existence of the LGPL make that fact entirely clear. -- dwmw2 ¹ Admittedly, incitement to murder is an offence in most countries but you get the point, and you still wouldn't be permitted to use the software if you didn't do it :)