Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:28:27 +0100 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: Reiserfs licencing - possible GPL conflict? |
| |
Peter Samuelson wrote: > The act of distributing GPL-compatibly-licensed software integrated > with GPL software *makes* the whole thing GPL-licensed.
Not quite. The thing *as a whole* is GPL-licensed, but its compenents may be extracted under their original license terms.
> > No. GPL software may not be integrated with non-GPL-compatible > > software. That's a significant difference, when the no-ads BSD > > licence and the MIT licence are both GPL compatible. > > In my opinion this distinction is moot, because of the nature of the > GPL itself.
"may not be integrated with non-GPL software" appears, to me, to refer to software that is non-GPL *prior* to integration.
Your point about integrated software becoming GPLed as a whole refers to *after* integration.
Therefore, the clause "may not be integrated with non-GPL software" is an additional restriction beyond the GPL, which is not permitted by a clause in the GPL, so the overall license is not GPL and is self-contradictory.
Also "integrated" means different things to different people, including lawyers. These different things have different consequences according to the GPL's terms.
-- Jamie
- 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/
| |