lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: GPLv2 or not GPLv2? (no license bashing)
Date
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 11:04, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> vda <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> writes:
> > Well, Linux kernel is GPLed. If one adds his/hers code to the kernel
> > (s)he is automatically agrees to the terms of GPL.
> >
> > Because "adds code" is actually incorrect here. "modifies existing
> > GPLed code" is more accurate.
>
> Suppose I write a new kernel module, without touching any existing
> code, and this module gets included in the kernel tree. Have I added
> code? Yes. Have I modified GPLed code? I think not.

I believe Linus said so too wrt out-of-tree modules.

I think modules included in 'official' tree better be GPLed
or else phrase 'Linux kernel is GPLed' becomes meaningless.
--
vda
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.050 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site