Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:33:07 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:17:06 PDT, Junio C Hamano said:
> under GPL, but even if it did, I do not think they have any > obligation to give us the source. GPL says "You may do such and > such provided if you do so and so" but that is all about the > Licensee. It does not talk anything about what the copyright > holder may, may not, nor must do :).
Remember however that it's *really* difficult to create a kernel module that's not a derivative work of the kernel - and for *that* side of the fence, they are indeed a licensee of the kernel source tree, not the copyright holder of their code....
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |