On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 04:26, Ian Malone wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 14:21, Ian Malone wrote: > >>> That would be an interesting challenge. Does the modification > >>> that Linus added to the copyright have the same weight as > >>> the GPL in applying to everything subsequently added? > >>> > >> ? The code is covered by GPL 2. > > > > Beg your pardon, but the COPYING file included with the > > last kernel source I saw (admittedly a 2.4.x...) was > > not the same as a stock GPL 2 and points out that programs > > that interface with kernel system calls are not > > derived works. > > > > Pardon granted ;) If that's the licence you make > and submit changes under then that's the one you're > bound by. No, he didn't modify the part of the GPL that says the 'work as a whole' must be distributed under the same terms. To whatever extent the GPL is valid, it has to apply to any modifications or they can't be distributed. The whole point of the GPL is that people making changes have no choice about the license terms that must be applied. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
