From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264265AbTLKBAb (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:00:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264275AbTLKBAb (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:00:31 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:17156 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264265AbTLKBAa (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:00:30 -0500 Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: Rob Love To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Maciej Zenczykowski , David Schwartz , Jason Kingsland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071104315.6072.260.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:58:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 17:59, Andre Hedrick wrote: > I suggest asking FSF how they play with GPL+another license. > They will tell you GPL can not co-exist, period. They cannot coexist _at the same time in the same agreement_, but a single work can be licensed out hundreds of times in different ways. If I hold the copyright on something, I can provide a different license to each licensee of the product if I so choose. That is pretty common, in fact. The GPL and some-other-license are incompatible in the sense that you cannot put another license on _top_ of the GPL in the _same_ licensing agreement. But you are free to license something in the GPL _or_ BSD _or_ some-evil-EULA, and that is what Linus et al are talking about, and _not_ what the FSF means when they say that some license is incompatible with the GPL. Robert Love