Re: linux gpl question
On 25 Apr 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
>> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
>> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
>However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes
>the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source,
>because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's
>what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to
>refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all.
I'm really wondering why you even bothered to point this out. You restate
my point rather complicatedly and mostly wrongly, then added a huge assed
dose of the obvious. Why?
BTW, he is only required to provide the GPL'd stuff when asked: there is
no law, clause, or any other thing on God's green earth that is forcing
him to give up his rights of authorship in code he wrote (gee, does it
sound like I'm repeating myself?).
>RMS of course has nothing to do with it, but the authors of Linux,
>whose work on Linux is all GPL'd, certainly do.
The license clause that apparently causes the author to have to GPL his
separatable work comes from the FSF, not from the authors of the Linux
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com