From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262425AbTLJOZZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:25:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263544AbTLJOZZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:25:25 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.86.99.235]:30608 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262425AbTLJOZY (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:25:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: David Woodhouse To: Andre Hedrick Cc: karim@opersys.com, Linus Torvalds , Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071066315.5712.344.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8.dwmw2.1) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:25:16 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 06:09 -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote: > Can we stop with the stupidity? I'm not sure which part you think is stupid. Do you: 1. Disagree with my paraphrasing of the GPL, in the first two paragraphs? 2. Disagree with the obviously correct statement that the GPL makes requirements about the licensing even of non-derived works? 3. Disagree with my example, given in the final two paragraphs, which makes it clear that a copyright licence _may_ make restrictions on the licensing of even non-derived works. Note that although my example is a licence where the licensee must release _all_ future work under the same licence, I'm not claiming that the GPL does this; I only claim that such a licence is _possible_. -- dwmw2