Les Mikesell wrote:
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.
I see, no, I wasn't suggesting that, I was just phrasing
in general terms. Certainly you can't pick and choose
which terms you follow in most licenses, and the GPL is
no exception. Its quid-pro-quo is that you are licensed
to produce derivative works provided those derivatives
are made available under the GPL.
--
imalone
