On Fri, 14 May 1999, Thomas Bryan wrote:
> Could someone please explain to me what the licensing issue is? If binary
> modules are linked against GPL'd code, then they're GPL'd, right? (That's
> why the LGPL exists.) And according to the GPL...
> "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except
> as expressly provided under this License."
Linus made the interpretation that binary modules were not a derived work
of the Program, and therefore did not fall under the GPL. Using the
headers to be able to work with the linux kernel is considered "fair use"
and does not require licensing at all.
> That seems to indicate that the GPL permits no licensing exceptions.
Not true. You can modify the GPL to your heart's content.
> Gee, I never thought about Linux and licensing. Does Linus hold the
> copyright to all of the kernel code? Can a copyright holder change his
> mind and use a different license from one release to the next? That would
> defeat the purpose of the GPL, wouldn't it?
No. You are the copyright holder. If you choose to distribute version 1.01
free, but make 1.02 a commercial program, that's up to you. The license
restricts OTHER people. You, as the copyright holder, do not need a
license.
Taral
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
