Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:01:24 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In other words, if (b) is GPL-only, then you can't use (b) with (c), > _or_ C has to accept the GPL. "Forcing" a (b+c) doesn't make (c) be > under the GPL. But forcing (b+c) is illegal, since you can't force a > license without the agreement of the owner.
i'm wondering why it's layed out like this. Couldnt the FSF have extended section 6 of the GPL the following way:
ORIGINAL: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
[this section is a pure expression of a license from the original author, covering the original Program only - not the derivative.]
ADDITION: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from you to copy, distribute or modify those portions ot the Program (or any work based on the Program), where you are the copyright owner or sublicensor. Any existing or future contract or agreement restricting you from doing so automatically terminates your rights under this License.
or something along these lines. Ie. cannot the act of distribution also automatically trigger a license from the entity doing the redistribution, for all portions which are owned by the redistributor? I suspect the FSF would have done this if legally possible ... so there must be some major roadblock in the way.
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |