> Chase Venters wrote:
> > can you name some non-GPL non-proprietary modules we should be concerned
> > about?
> You probably meant "non-GPL-compatible non-proprietary". If so, then by
> definition there are none.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
Are you saying that there do not exist any non-proprietary licenses that
are incompatible with the GPL? That's obviously not true. Consider, for
example, a license that was basically the BSD license with an additional
prohibition against licensing with new restrictions. Consider the original
BSD license with advertising clause. Consider a license that requires the
source to always travel with the binary.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
