Re: [OT] from LGPL to dual-license?
> Note that Linus doesn't agree with that idea, which is why, for example, the
> nvidia driver is allowed.
I think I'm confused -- in that case, wouldn't Linux be the larger
work, and the driver be a work that's linked in? nVidia of course has
the right to license their software however they like...?
-js
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> On 01/29/2009 05:27 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Still, that's much easier than building proprietary or dual licensed work
>> on top of GPL software. The FSF's interpretation is basically that anytime
>> GPL licensed code is integral to the functioning of the larger work (dynamic
>> linking, static linking, IPC, *anytime*) the larger work must be licensed
>> under the GPL, effectively forbidding proprietary or dual licensed works
>> from being built on it.
>
> Note that Linus doesn't agree with that idea, which is why, for example, the
> nvidia driver is allowed.
Reply to: