lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Announce: DinX windowing system 0.2.0
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Ben Williamson wrote:

>> My concern is: If one includes it in kernel, either modularly,
>> or statically linked using the GPL license: if they make
>> modifications to this code, they are making mods to a GPL work,
>> and unless they also allow their modifications to be licenced
>> under MPL, you will not be able to relicense the resulting code
>> with MPL. Since you can't force anyone to licence under both
>> terms, the GPL wins, and any modifications done to the GPL work
>> remain GPL unless the author of the mods gives the changes back
>> under both licenses as well.
>
>Now I understand your concern; thanks for explaining it.

Ok, great. Now hopefully everyone can cool their pants on the
GPL thread that is underway. ;o)

>If the kernel modules make it into a kernel distribution, I'll be more
>than happy for them to stay GPL forever after. If enough people submit
>patches based on copies of the code without the MPL notice (and it becomes
>a hassle asking for permission to use the patch under the MPL) then the
>packages I distribute will have the GPL notice instead of the MPL notice
>in those files. And if the project is successful to the point where the
>kernel modules and includes become a part of the standard kernel, even as
>experimental code, then the DinX packages will probably stop containing
>those sources. At that point the stuff that belongs in the kernel will be
>GPL, and the user-space stuff will be MPL, and we should all be happy.
>Right? :)

Right, sounds fine to me.

>The intention of the dual licence at this stage is to make it easy to move
>bits of code back and forth between the kernel and user sides, until we
>get it right. Hopefully that will all settle down before we approach the
>glorious goals mentioned above.

I see. Well that clarifies things quite a bit now. Sounds ok to
me. If there is one thing that I've noticed in some of these GPL
threads, it is that the SPECIFIC wording of ones words, or of a
license, or explanation - can be interpreted by many people in a
plethora of completely different ways - myself included. In my
case it was the word "exceptions" which I interpreted as
"additional restrictions" - and now I understand that that
assumption was incorrect.

Take care!
Happy New Year!


--
Mike A. Harris Linux advocate
Computer Consultant GNU advocate
Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate

Join the FreeMWare project - the goal to produce a FREE program in
which you can run Windows 95/98/NT, and other operating systems.

http://www.freemware.org


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.055 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site