Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264462AbTIDBiO (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:38:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264493AbTIDBiO (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:38:14 -0400 Received: from mail0-96.ewetel.de ([212.6.122.96]:41157 "EHLO mail0.ewetel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264462AbTIDBiJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:38:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 03:38:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Pascal Schmidt To: David Schwartz cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Driver Model In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-CheckCompat: OK Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2730 Lines: 77 On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, David Schwartz wrote: > In other words, if you want to distribute the Linux kernel, you must > license it under the terms of the GPL. You may not impose additional > restrictions because if you do, you're not causing it to be distribute > under the terms of "this License". Correct. > It does cover use. In section 0: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. > Specifically, it permits unrestriced use. If you > received GPL'd code, you have the unrestricted right to use it. That's > what section 2b says. No, section 2b gives you the the right to copy, distribute, and modify the code (as the license only covers those rights, as per section 0) and no restrictions may be placed on those specific rights. > Non-issue. I'm talking about your rights to *use* the kernel. Well, I'm not buying the argument that the GPL has anything to say about usage. > You must not be reading the same GPL I am. Can you please cite to me the > section that requires derived works to be placed under the GPL. I can't > find it. You quoted it yourself. 2b) b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "work that ... is derived from the Program or any part thereof" > But that's not what it does. It prevents you from using the kernel in > certain ways. The GPL does not permit such usage restrictions. Lots of GPL'ed programs refuse to be used in certain ways. For example, fetchmail will refuse to run with a world-readable .fetchmailrc file. > It also restricts your ability to create and use derived works. The GPL > similarly does not permit such restrictions. That it does not, and such a restriction would violate the GPL, I'd agree to that. > You only have that right (in the United States) if the GPL_ONLY stuff is > *not* a copyright enforcement scheme. How can it be that? It does not restrict copying nor distribution nor modification. People here are saying that it's more of a hint to people that they better think hard and ask a lawyer before implementing non-GPL'ed kernel modules. I think you bringing the DMCA into this shows an interesting aspect of that law: who gets to say what is a copyright enforcement scheme and what is not? -- Ciao, Pascal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/