Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:20:09 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > So given RMS and company state OSL and GPL are not compatable, how does > the two exist in the current kernel? Earlier, iirc, there were comments > about dual license conflicts.
They don't "co-exist".
Some parts of the kernel are dual-licensed, which basically means that the author says "you can use this code under _either_ the GPL or the OSL".
When used in the kernel, the GPL is the one that matters. But being dual-licensed means that the same thing may be used somewhere else under another license (so you could use that particular instance of code under the OSL in some _other_ project where the OSL would be ok).
This is pretty common. We have several drivers that are dual-GPL/BSD, and there are some parts that are dual GPL/proprietary (which is just another way of saying that the author is licensing it somewhere else under a proprietary model - common for hardware manufacturers that write their own driver and _also_ use it somewhere else: when in Linux, they license it under the GPL, when somewhere else, they have some other license).
This isn't Linux-specific - you'll find the same thing in other projects. Most well-known perhaps perl - which is dual Artistic/GPL (I think. That's from memory).
And ghostscript was (is?) dual-licensed too (proprietary/GPL).
Linus - 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/
| |