Mahesh T. Pai wrote: [...] > Regarding legal binding -- In all these years, only the SCO > has been silly enough to question its bindingness.
OTOH, SCO is probably in full agreement with Linus on this: groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZhWT-39U-3%40gated-at.bofh.it <quote> > Yes, but they will cite the prohibition against > *creating* derived works. So? The same prohibition exists with the GPL. You are not allowed to create and distribute a derived work unless it is GPL'd. I don't see what you are arguing against. It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. You can then try to prove (through development history etc) that there would be major reasons why it's not really derived. </quote> Now replace "kernel" with SysV UNIX and GPL with "confidential" (OCO or something like that). How nice. regards, alexander. P.S. www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html <quote> GPL "GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according to Sontag... </quote> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
