Re: Moglen's "all good faith"
There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and
even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the
individual file copyright notices.
On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in
> > > its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary
> > > video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't
> > > link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms.
> > > ----
> > >
> > > I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen
> > > thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is
> > > kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception
> > > for user space).
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > Perhaps this:
> > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
> And how does that make it "impure" GPL? Permission to relicense
> under revised later versions is not part of the GPL license terms.
Jabber - firstname.lastname@example.org
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net