From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263487AbTLJOrU (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:47:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263544AbTLJOrU (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:47:20 -0500 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:11185 "EHLO work.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263487AbTLJOrT (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:47:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:46:13 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: David Woodhouse Cc: Andre Hedrick , karim@opersys.com, Linus Torvalds , Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Message-ID: <20031210144612.GA19357@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , David Woodhouse , Andre Hedrick , karim@opersys.com, Linus Torvalds , Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1071066315.5712.344.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1071066315.5712.344.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:25:16PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > 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_. Unless I need more coffee (which is certainly possible, it's early), yeah, I disagree with this. A contract could do this but a copyright based license doesn't seem like it can. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm