From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S264959AbTLKOH0 (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:07:26 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264961AbTLKOHZ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:07:25 -0500
Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]:57541 "EHLO
	sccrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S264959AbTLKOHY (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:07:24 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:54:22 -0500
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
       Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>,
       Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
       Paul Adams <padamsdev@yahoo.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
Message-ID: <20031211135422.GA4315@pimlott.net>
Mail-Followup-To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
	Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Paul Adams <padamsdev@yahoo.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20031204235055.62846.qmail@web21503.mail.yahoo.com> <20031205004653.GA7385@codepoet.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312041956530.27578@montezuma.fsmlabs.com> <20031205010349.GA9745@codepoet.org> <20031205012124.GB15799@work.bitmover.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312041750270.6638@home.osdl.org> <1071146277.5712.589.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1071146277.5712.589.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: Andrew Pimlott <andrew@pimlott.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:37:58PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Your conditions for granting that permission do _not_ have to be
> restricted to licensing of derived works. You can even ask for _money_
> in return, if you like. Or you could require that the lucky recipient
> bathe in creosote daily, in order to receive your licence.

NAL, but look up "misuse of copyright".  You can't just require
whatever pleases your fancy.

Eg,

    http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/cases/15PQ2D1846.htm

> I could write a piece of software and tell you that you're only allowed
> to use it if you release _all_ future software you write under the GPL.
> Even stuff which isn't at all related, let alone non-derived.

Highly doubtful.

Andrew