Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Mon, 27 Dec 1999 19:48:50 +0300 (MSK) | Subject | Re: Announce: DinX windowing system 0.2.0 |
| |
In <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912270902330.1060-100000@asdf.capslock.lan> Mike A. Harris (mharris@meteng.on.ca) wrote: MH> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>>MH> Because the MPL licence is useless in the context of the >>MH> software. The software is code that sits with the kernel. The >>MH> only code that may be compiled into the kernel is code that is >>MH> GPL'd or under a GPL compatible licence (which MPL is not). >>MH> Thus, licencing under MPL makes the code useless, or it voids the >>MH> MPL licence. If the only way to use the code is to use the GPL >>MH> licence, then GPL wins. >> >>But this code can be compiled as module as well (may be not right now, though). >>And then you can use any license at your choice. You need GPL if you want to >>link it statically in kernel and you can add proprietary extensions (as MPL >>allows) when using it as module. What's wrong here ? >> >>MH> So to simplify things, just say what it really is: >> >>MH> GPL licenced. Then say that others may obtain or use the code >>MH> under MPL licence as well. If using the MPL licence however, >>MH> they will not be able to link with the Linux kernel. >> >>Link - no. Load as module - yes. So MPL is usable here.
MH> If it modifies ANY existing kernel source, it would be in MH> violation of GPL regardless of if it is linked monolithically or MH> modularly.
Why ? Changes should be GPL'ed, but module itself. It'll be viloation of GPL spirit, of course, but violation of GPL letter... I think not.
- 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/
| |