Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:40:37 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 11:38 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > The thing that is trying to cross the boundary is the kernel license > so what matters is if the thing which you believe should be GPLed is > separable or not.
Forget boundaries, Larry. Consider the case of the Creosote Public Licence to which I referred before. That one required you to bathe daily in creosote and release _all_ your future work under the same licence; separate works or not.
If you don't comply with the licence, you may not use the original work. It's that simple -- whatever the requirements of the licence are, you obey them or you don't have a licence.
In the case of the CPL, it isn't a crime for you to publish your own non-derived work under another licence, or one day to decide not to bathe in creosote -- but it does place you in violation of the Creosote Public Licence and hence mean that continued use of the _original_ work is a violation of its copyright; and therefore a criminal offence.
This is not about whether a licence _can_ demand this. We know it can -- it can demand the ritual sacrifice of your first-born, and all that means is that if you don't agree, you don't get to use the software in question¹.
This is about whether the GPL _does_ demand this. I believe that it does, and that the user-space exception and the existence of the LGPL make that fact entirely clear.
-- dwmw2
¹ Admittedly, incitement to murder is an offence in most countries but you get the point, and you still wouldn't be permitted to use the software if you didn't do it :)
- 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/
| |