On Jun 21, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great, so for ever and ever afterwards the code would have to keep a
> clear separation between the bits that are under different licences and
> make sure that no re-factor ever blurred the lines between them enough
> that you had trouble telling which was which.
As long as you care about being able to tell which is which, yes. I
can understand why, under some circumstances, this might be taken as
worse than not being able to use code under GPLv3 (or any other
incompatible license) at all.
> understand what licence the final work is under.
If it's a mingled combination of code under GPLv2 plus permission to
combine with v3, and GPLv3 plus (potential built-in?) permission to
combine with v2, these are the combined terms. You can still use it
with code under GPLv2 plus permission to combine with v3, and with
GPLv3 plus (potential built-in?) permission to combine with v2. I can
see that it boggles the minds not used to this kind of combination.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
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]
