Indeed. I'd encourage it too :-)
> > * copyrights and attributions of the old code. This code is basically GPL.
> >
> > Reading later down in the file, it clearly contains a different license
> > to the GPL which is in fact against the license - unless permission has
> > been granted by the FSF for such to be allowed (in which case it would
> > probably be prudent to mention that somewhere).
>
> The ip_fw code isnt in violating of the GPL because the component doesnt
> contain any restrictions that violate the GPL. So when its part of the
> kernel said component is under the GPL. It was left with the original
> note long ago so that we could share firewall code back to the FreeBSD
> people. Similarly the the cisco hdlc code in 2.1.12x is part of a GPL
> total, but as a seperate work its under a much looser license.
But how does that sit with the following paragraph:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
With consideration to the word "sublicense" ? Whilst it isn't more
restrictive than the GPL, it isn't the GPL, which (to me) appears
to be a problem ?
Darren
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/