Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:04:11 -0500 (EST) | From | "Mike A. Harris" <> | Subject | Re: Announce: DinX windowing system 0.2.0 |
| |
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.
If it modifies ANY existing kernel source, it would be in violation of GPL regardless of if it is linked monolithically or modularly.
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
Join the FreeMWare project - the goal to produce a FREE program in which you can run Windows 95/98/NT, and other operating systems.
http://www.freemware.org
- 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/
| |