Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Dec 1998 01:05:27 +0000 ( ) | From | Aaron Lehmann <> | Subject | Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux |
| |
The GPL has strong problems with linking GPL'd code with proprietary code. Unfortuantely, I think I heard something about Linus deciding to allow proprietary modules to be loaded in.
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > > Naming aside, my point is that open source software is always, well, > > open -- open to be picked up and carried by new interested parties. > > Even more, the GPL subset of the open source pool can't spawn private > > forks; this is even stronger insurance. > > > > So I don't worry about corporate interference. Not yet, anyway. > > Yes, I think that according to the GPL, any change that IBM makes in > existing code would have to be also GPL. Now if they write their own > separate piece, say a module, I think they can use any license they want. > OSS does not distribute the source for their commercial sound stuff, do > they? > > QUESTION: Say IBM wrote their own mmap.c replacement with no GPL code in > it. Can they distribute a binary kernel image made with that mmap.c > without distributing the source to that small program? I mean, can that > particular mmap.c have a non-gpl license? In other words, they distribute > only the source for the GPL parts of the code? > > > > > > George Bonser > > The Linux "We're never going out of business" sale at an FTP site near you! > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |