Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.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 :)