Re: PROPOSAL: licensing guidelines
(hmm, Pine 4.10 seemed to choke on your From: line)
On Wed, 17 May 2000, it was written:
> On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 03:54:40PM +0200, Maurizio De Cecco wrote:
> > Erik Troan <ewt@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > > - Clause 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.
> > > >
> > > > While using the GPL for libraries is conformant with this OSD
> > > > requirement, we do not want the runtime linking of any GPL
> > > > libraries to be required for conformance with our standards.
> >
> > The standard define the API, while the licence cover the implementation, right ?
> >
> > Should this then translate that the standard should include only library APIs for which
> > at least one Open Source that is not GPL implementation exists ?
> >
> > Who is going to explain this to Mr. Stallman ?
>
> I do not think we can exclude GPL as an open source license.
> And we should not exclude GPL-ed sources as reference implementations.
> If we do, we do not have a kernel, as the Linux kernel is GPL.
I quote from the kernel's COPYING file.
| NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
| services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
| of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
| Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
| Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
| kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
|
| Linus Torvalds
Reply to: