On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 22:38 +0000, 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. > > > > What are we disagreeing about? I thought you were suggesting that people had a choice of license terms when submitting changes. The terms make it very clear that they don't. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
