Messages in this thread | | | From | vda <> | Subject | Re: GPLv2 or not GPLv2? (no license bashing) | Date | Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:53:23 +0200 |
| |
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/
| |