From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263985AbTLOVJj (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:09:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264106AbTLOVJj (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:09:39 -0500 Received: from greendale.ukc.ac.uk ([129.12.21.13]:63485 "EHLO greendale.ukc.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263985AbTLOVJi (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:09:38 -0500 To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Linus Torvalds , Paul Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? References: From: Adam Sampson Organization: Don't wake me, 'cos I'm dreaming, and I might just stay inside again today. Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:01:24 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Andre Hedrick's message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:57:56 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UKC-Mail-System: No virus detected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andre Hedrick writes: > OSL 1 and 2 are a preferred choice as they are slowly creaping into > the kernel. The problem with the OSL is that it requires mirror sites to get anybody downloading OSL-licensed software from them to explicitly agree to the license; this is simply not practical, and the result is that it is not feasible to freely mirror OSL-licensed software. This hasn't been fixed with OSL 2, and as such it would be an exceptionally poor choice for any piece of software that you want to be widely distributed, which certainly includes Linux. -- Adam Sampson