This, IMO, is one of the messiest parts of most
alleged "Open Source" licenses. When one sees a
collection of terms from the several contributors
in a chain, does that mean the user has a licensee-
licensor relationship with each of them ? What
about conflicts between those sets of terms ? Is
sub
On 8 Jan 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> But, again, it's not unclear for Linux. Linus has clearly stated that
> loadable binary modules are OK for Linux. There is no confusion
> there.
But Linus doesn't own the copyright of all of the code in Linux. If this
is just a personal exemption granted
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If one was to go through the pain of creating a set of headers from
> scratch that happen to behave just like the one is the kernel snapshot
> they are referrencing, as a manual to the API. This obviously is
> extracting the ideas in :
>
> ./linux-{sna
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, David Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 January 2003 10:15 pm, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > New twist:
> >
> > user_space.c kernel_space.c
> > #include#include
> > #include #include
> > #inc
4 matches
Mail list logo