Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:38:22 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented? |
| |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:27:40AM -0500, Dana Lacoste wrote: > On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:18, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > A boundary is a boundary. It doesn't matter how much you want or need > > what is on the other side of that boundary, you don't get to make your > > license cross that boundary, the law doesn't work that way. > > Thus the concept of "derivative work."
Derivative works don't get to cross boundaries. A boundary is a trump card, it's like a patent, it has strength. Go dig into the legal findings in this area. My memory is that anything you can pull out and replace with another implementation constitutes a boundary and you may have different licenses on either side of that boundary without fear of them fighting. So a derivative work which can't be easily replaced doesn't get to have a different license than the basis. On the other hand, something which plugs into an interface, like a driver or a file system, could have a different license. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
| |