From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264918AbTLKMuV (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:50:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264927AbTLKMuU (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:50:20 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:59915 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264918AbTLKMs4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:48:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:42:44 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: David Woodhouse cc: Linus Torvalds , Larry McVoy , Erik Andersen , Zwane Mwaikambo , Paul Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: <1071146277.5712.589.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> 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 > There is no question that, as a copyright licence, the GPL _can_ extend > to a non-derived work; and in some circumstances it clearly _does_. David, Would you be kind enough to list "some circumstances" ? Also the authoritative (sp) reference supporting the list. Just spell it out for us who are a little slow in the wee hours of the morning. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 17:58 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > But a license only covers what it _can_ cover - derived works. The fact > > that Linux is under the GPL simply _cannot_matter_ to a user program, if > > the author can show that the user program is not a derived work. > > Not so. You, as author of the GPL'd work, are granting permission for > someone else to make use of it (other than 'fair use' which they were > already permitted). > > Your conditions for granting that permission do _not_ have to be > restricted to licensing of derived works. You can even ask for _money_ > in return, if you like. Or you could require that the lucky recipient > bathe in creosote daily, in order to receive your licence. > > I could write a piece of software and tell you that you're only allowed > to use it if you release _all_ future software you write under the GPL. > Even stuff which isn't at all related, let alone non-derived. > > It wouldn't be illegal for you to create your own non-GPL software per > se; it would just mean you don't have permission to use what _I_ had > written and released under this hypothetical licence. > > You'd probably have to be mad to accept this licence, and of course I > don't argue that the GPL actually goes _that_ far, but a copyright > licence certainly _can_ do so. > > The GPL explicitly does make reference to required licensing terms for > non-derived works in certain circumstances, even those which can > reasonably be considered separate and independent works in themselves. > > There is no question that, as a copyright licence, the GPL _can_ extend > to a non-derived work; and in some circumstances it clearly _does_. > > -- > dwmw2 > > - > 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/ >