Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] >> > Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were >> > pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You >> > couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether >> > dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which >> > were proprietary in their license terms. >> > ---- >> > >> > I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen >> > thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is >> > kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception >> > for user space). >> > >> > Any thoughts? >> >> Perhaps this: >> >> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel >> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not >> v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. > > And how does that make it "impure" GPL? Permission to relicense > under revised later versions is not part of the GPL license terms.
Are we talking about what makes sense, or about what Mr Moglen says? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]