From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264262AbTLJXFW (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:05:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264266AbTLJXFV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:05:21 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:49675 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264262AbTLJXFJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:05:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:59:10 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Ingo Molnar cc: Linus Torvalds , Maciej Zenczykowski , David Schwartz , Jason Kingsland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo, I suggest asking FSF how they play with GPL+another license. They will tell you GPL can not co-exist, period. The reply is a double bounce back of ideas. Jason, What you are really saying is the Linux does not have a GPL license. It has a GPL-like or LKL. Linux Kernel License. Hmmm, new thought ... I will be kind to it because it is in a strange place :-) Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > I have and the lawyers tell me that it is one or the other and can not > > be both. So explain to me how a GPL/BSD or BSD/GPL works again? > > ugh. Are your lawyers saying that the tons of dual-licensed code is not a > valid license? Seems like your lawyers disagree with lots of other > lawyers. > > > Also if one does an md5sum on the "COPYING" file from FSF and compares > > it from the one in the kernel source they differ. > > here's the (trivial) diff. Draw your own conclusions. > > --- libc/COPYING 2001-07-06 07:57:07.000000000 +0200 > +++ v/COPYING 2003-11-23 13:21:58.000000000 +0100 > @@ -1,3 +1,19 @@ > + > + NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel > + services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use > + of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". > + Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software > + Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux > + kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. > + > + Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel > + is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > + v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > + > + Linus Torvalds > + > +---------------------------------------- > + > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, June 1991 > > - > 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/ >