Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265749AbTIKBgB (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:36:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265891AbTIKBgB (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:36:01 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:56791 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265749AbTIKBf6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:35:58 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Pascal Schmidt" Cc: Subject: RE: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model] Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:35:53 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2566 Lines: 58 > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, David Schwartz wrote: > > Please show me one restriction on *use* in the GPL. > Well, you may not *use* GPL'd code to produce a derived work and > distribute it in binary form only. That is a restriction on distribution, not use. You may use GPL'd code to produce a derived work and you may use that derived work. The only restrictions kick in when and if you distribute that derived work. > Use of the code, not use of > the product, sure. The GPL puts no restrictions on use. The GPL_ONLY stuff does. It's really this simple: The GPL says you can use the code for whatever you want. It also says that if you want to distribute the GPL'd work or works based on the GPL'd work, you may not impose any restrictions other than those imposed by the GPL. It very specifically prohibits restrictions on mere use or upon the mere creation of derived works. All of its restrictions kick in on distribution. The GPL_ONLY stuff is an attempt to restrict use. There is nothing inherently wrong with attempts to restrict use. One could argue that the root permission check on 'umount' is a restriction on use. Surely the GPL doesn't mean you can't have any usage restrictions at all. What it does mean is that such usage restrictions *cannot* be licensing restrictions. In other words, it cannot be a license violation to remove them or circumvent them. So long as nobody tries to claim the GPL_ONLY is a license enforcement technique, there is no dispute. However, some people seem to be arguing that the GPL_ONLY symbols are in fact a license enforcement technique. If that's true, then when they distribute their code, they are putting additional restrictions not in the GPL on it. That is a GPL violation. Other people who contributed to the Linux kernel relied upon the GPL license to ensure that their code, and works derived from it, would be available *without* use restrictions. Nobody has the right to turn around and impose usage restrictions on the Linux kernel source code. The GPL prohibits the imposition of any licensing requirements other than those contained in the GPL itself, all of which kick in only upon distribution. It's really that simple. Anyone who distributes the Linux kernel with a licensing restriction that kicks in on mere use is violating the GPL. DS - 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/