[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?
    On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:27:40AM -0500, Dana Lacoste wrote:
    > On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:18, Larry McVoy wrote:
    > > A boundary is a boundary. It doesn't matter how much you want or need
    > > what is on the other side of that boundary, you don't get to make your
    > > license cross that boundary, the law doesn't work that way.
    > Thus the concept of "derivative work."

    Derivative works don't get to cross boundaries. A boundary is a trump
    card, it's like a patent, it has strength. Go dig into the legal
    findings in this area. My memory is that anything you can pull out and
    replace with another implementation constitutes a boundary and you may
    have different licenses on either side of that boundary without fear of
    them fighting. So a derivative work which can't be easily replaced
    doesn't get to have a different license than the basis. On the other
    hand, something which plugs into an interface, like a driver or a
    file system, could have a different license.
    Larry McVoy lm at
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.024 / U:2.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site