From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264584AbTLHI06 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 03:26:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265347AbTLHI06 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 03:26:58 -0500 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:2176 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264584AbTLHI05 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 03:26:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:32:12 GMT From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200312080832.hB88WCEG000384@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: Krzysztof Halasa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <200312071515.hB7FFkQH000866@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> Subject: Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quote from Krzysztof Halasa : > John Bradford writes: > > > "This file is not a complete program and may only be used when the > > entire operating system is licensed under the GPL". > > > > as > > grep -C 1 "only be used when" > > > > in drivers/net will confirm. > > > > *Please*, can we resist the temptation to 'play' with licenses in this > > way? I suspect this extra clause was added just to clarify what the > > GPL already says, > > I don't think so - GPL doesn't restrict the _use_, only the distribution. OK, more accurately what I meant was that I suspect that the original _intent_ of adding that clause was to clarify the GPL, and that the extra clause fails to do that. John.