Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)
On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 02:20:21PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> From the reiserfs mailinglist:
>
> Hans Reiser wrote:
> > I am quite happy if folks suggest better phrasing than what I use.
To solve incompatability with the GPL:
Replace:
> +Since that license (particularly 2.b) is necessarily vague in certain
> +areas due to its generality, the following interpretations shall govern.
with:
+If you feel that the GPL is too restrictive or vague, you may choose to
+be governed by the following interpretations.
To solve the binary kernel module issue.. hmm...
For the moment, I'm happy with the interpretation that binary kernel
modules are treated in the same fashion as other programs: They use
an API exported by the kernel. That API isn't particularly stable,
but that doesn't seem to me to mean that binary kernel modules should
be restricted more heavily than other binaries.
There may be legal flaws with this point of view, but at the moment I
don't see them.
Exporting an API is what the kernel does. If binary kernel modules are
restricted by the GPL so are all other programs.
Perhaps Linux should be licensed under the LGPL, to solve this issue?
--
Raul
Reply to: