Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:23:27 -0500 (EST) | From | Lee Chin <> | Subject | Re: BSD Licensed files in Linux kernel. |
| |
So now Im slightly confused... when you say
"GPL code does not necessarily have to be linked ONLY to GPL code. Rather, GPL code must be linked to GPL code *OR* code which is MORE LIBERAL than the GPL itself"
Does this mean to say that If I link my application with glibc, I have to gove away my code under either GPL or a more liberal licence?
Thank You Lee
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Darren Reed wrote:
>Sorry to disturb you folks, but someone has pointed out to me >that there are some files (e.g. linux/drivers/net/bsd_comp.c) >which are licensed under the BSD license and not the GPL.
There is nothing wrong with that, so long as it is the BSD license WITHOUT the advertising clause.
>Whilst the Linux kernel itself is `meant' to be GPL'd, there >would appear to be some doubt about whether the GPL would allow >such files to be included (no sub-licensing, etc). Has anyone >received legal advice about whether those files do in fact >represent a further restriction that would conflict with the >GPL ? If so, can they still be (re)distributed with Linux ? >Afterall, it is not appropriate to just remove the offending >lines...
GPL code does not necessarily have to be linked ONLY to GPL code. Rather, GPL code must be linked to GPL code *OR* code which is MORE LIBERAL than the GPL itself. The original BSD license required that an advertising clause be displayed on the screen, etc if the code was used in modified form in other projects. Thus the original BSD license is not compatible with the GPL because this is seen as an "additional restriction", however there is a second BSD license has been modified to remove this ad clause. Any code under this second BSD license does not have restrictions that are incompatible with GPL, and as such any BSD code using the new license can be used with GPL code freely - giving a GPL end product. In other words, using BSD code in a GPL project makes the GPL end product swallow the code and end up being GPL'd in the end.
GPL code can be linked with any non-GPL code so long as the license for the non-GPL code does not impose restrictions which are GPL incompatible.
In fairness to the authors of any BSD code that gets swallowed into the kernel, or other projects, most folk redistribute their modifications to the BSD code under a dual license GPL and BSD so that BSD folk can still use the code with BSD license and arent forced to use GPL.
>Darren > >p.s. This is just to settle an argument elsewhere about this, so >I thought I'd ask the "experts"...
Well, I'm no expert, but I've taken part in many similar discussions and I think that my above statements are more or less correct, however IANAL, so don't quote me directly.
In general, when mixing code licenses, GPL is either compatible with another license, or not. If it is compatible, the end product is GPL only, unless dual licensing is honoured by the people involved in the project.
Hope this helps.
TTYL
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
Suspicious Anagram #4: Word: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA Anagram: TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS
- 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/
______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
- 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/
| |