Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S130442AbQJ0VIy>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:08:54 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S130551AbQJ0VIe>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:08:34 -0400
Received: from tnt-dal-113.dallas.net ([209.44.41.113]:44804 "EHLO
	bfgbhome.inetint.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S130442AbQJ0VI3>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:08:29 -0400
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:08:07 -0500
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openswitch.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL Question
Message-ID: <20001027160807.B7036@openswitch.org>
Reply-To: bidulock@openswitch.org
Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKMEJFLIAA.davids@webmaster.com> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10010272013140.13264-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10010272013140.13264-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk>; from jas88@cam.ac.uk on Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 08:17:11PM +0100
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openswitch.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

All, IANAL, but:

    #1: take this discussion of this list...

    goto news:comp.software.licensing

    read the FAQ

    if you still have questions send them to mailto:licensing@gnu.org

    if you don't like any of those answers, talk to a lawyer

    be fair, don't steal someone else's work (don't be like Dennis)

    both GPL and LGPL are clear: you change it, you publish source

    if you don't want to publish source, best bet is don't change it,
        just use it the way it is

    you may not have the right to change anything (according to your
        employer): consult a lawyer

--Brian

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, James Sutherland wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> > > increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> > > modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module
> > > be released under the GPL?
> > 
> > 	If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to
> > every piece of software that uses the Windows API.
> 
> In fact, since you call the Windows API by linking against Windows
> libraries (kernel32.dll etc), Microsoft have as much right to dictate the
> licensing of Windows apps as the FSF has to require apps linked against
> GPLed code to be GPLed. (IMO, neither has any such right; of course, given
> the spate of recent laws we've seen, I wouldn't put any faith in a legal
> system to reach the "right" decision...)
> 
> In this particular case - just communicating with GPLed code - the answer
> is no, you are not required to impose GPL restrictions on your users, you
> can use a free license instead (or a proprietary one, if you really
> want...)
> 
> 
> James.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
http://www.openss7.org/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/