[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Reiserfs licencing - possible GPL conflict?
David Schwartz wrote:
> > 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.
> Umm, no. Your argument is absurd.

I don't think it's absurd but you have deconstructed it succesfully
anyway. Summary to watchers: you can turn any GPL-compatible software
into GPL software, so integration with GPL-compatible software is

A bit like "this hold only permits square pegs". Oh dear, I have a
round peg. Ah, but I didn't appreciate, you can cut round pegs to make
them square at any time.

> > Also "integrated" means different things to different people, including
> > lawyers. These different things have different consequences according
> > to the GPL's terms.
> I think it's very clear that "integrated" means a derived work
> (which is a very precise term under copyright law). If you can think
> of any other meaning, please offer it.

Now, I know and you know that integration as not the same as
aggregation. But the below suggests that someone draws the line
differently. Why not just say "derived work"?

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> My attorneys have reviewed this license and they tell me that this means
> that the ReiserFS is ***NOT*** open sourced. Using it with this
> restriction makes any commercial vendors who want to ship it liable for
> damages claims, since the act of shipping it means they will integrate
> it with an OS.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.033 / U:1.816 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site