From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264875AbTLKK5z (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:57:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264873AbTLKK5z (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:57:55 -0500 Received: from AGrenoble-101-1-4-17.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr ([217.128.202.17]:51085 "EHLO awak") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264875AbTLKK5v convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:57:51 -0500 Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: Xavier Bestel To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Maciej Zenczykowski , David Schwartz , Jason Kingsland , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Message-Id: <1071140217.6273.134.camel@nomade> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:56:58 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le mer 10/12/2003 à 23:59, Andre Hedrick a écrit : > Ingo, > > I suggest asking FSF how they play with GPL+another license. > They will tell you GPL can not co-exist, period. Think of it as a fork. I own a piece of code I just made. So far I can license it the way I want, OK ? So I fork it, license one branch under the GPL and license the other branch under a proprietary license. Voilà, it's dual-licensed ! When integrated to the linux kernel, it's technically fully GPLed, even if called "proprietary/GPL" in the header file. Of course, contributors to my work are free to tell me "I want my patches to your code only for the GPL version", but generally they won't, so I can integrate them back to the proprietary code. Pending good legal advice, of course. It it clearer ? Xav