From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S263791AbTLEB6r (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:58:47 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263793AbTLEB6q
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:58:46 -0500
Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:55272 "EHLO
	shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263791AbTLEB6o
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:58:44 -0500
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Jason Kingsland" <Jason_Kingsland@hotmail.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:58:37 -0800
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKKEGMIHAA.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <BAY7-DAV34DV1amvu4600002bbe@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Importance: Normal
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules
> in 2.6 and
> beyond.

	I'm baffled how you think this is a choice that can be made. The license is
the GPL itself and even the Linux kernel developers have no power to change
it.

	DS