From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264582AbTLGVzI (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:55:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264584AbTLGVzI (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:55:08 -0500 Received: from hq.pm.waw.pl ([195.116.170.10]:7593 "EHLO hq.pm.waw.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264582AbTLGVzD (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:55:03 -0500 To: John Bradford Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers References: <200312071515.hB7FFkQH000866@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:15:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200312071515.hB7FFkQH000866@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> (John Bradford's message of "Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:15:46 GMT") Message-ID: 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 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. I.e. I'd be breaking law by merely _using_ the epic100 driver, as the operating system (my experimental Linux-based system) isn't licensed under GPL - in fact, it isn't licensed under any license, as I don't distribute it at all. -- Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH