Re: Moglen's "all good faith"
Alexander Terekhov <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
Are we talking about what makes sense, or about what Mr Moglen says?