From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264343AbTLEUPB (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:15:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264354AbTLEUPB (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:15:01 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:25558 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264343AbTLEUO7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:14:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:14:53 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: David Schwartz cc: Ryan Anderson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David Schwartz wrote: > > >But what they do NOT have the right to do is to create derivative works of > >the kernel, and distribute them to others. > > Yes, they do. Since they have the right to create the derived work and have > not agreed to the GPL, the only thing that could restrict their distribution > is the law, not the GPL. Please show me the law that permits a copyright > holder to restrict the distribution of derived works. I'm not going to argue with you any more. I am not a lawyer, and clearly you aren't one either (or you're a really really bad one). The "show me the law" is USC 17. It's called "US Copyright Law". As a copyright holder in the Linux kernel, I _do_ have the right to restrict the distribution of derived works. That's what copyright law is all about. Your arguments are just vacuous and stupid. I _very_ much have the right to restrict the distribution of derived works, and that is what a license is all about. Without a license to distribute, you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to distribute a derived work. What's so hard to understand about that? And the only rights you have are rights granted to you in some license. And that license in this case is the GPL. Which does NOT grant you rights to redistribute derived works without the source being available under the same license. End of discussion. You can whine all you like, but whining has never changed reality. Linus