Re: Linux kernel in breach of GPL ?
Tim Smith (tzs@tzs.net)
Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:09:20 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Darren Reed wrote:
> > 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.
Basically, Alan (for the sake of this discussion, let's assume Alan is
the sole copyright holder of the code in question, to save typing) makes
that code available under *two* licenses: GPL and a BSD-like license.
A particular person who wants to use Alan's code can pick which of those
licenses they wish to use it under.
A license is really just a promise that the copyright owner won't sue
you if you do certain things with his code. When someone puts their code
under two licenses, A and B, they are simply saying "I won't sue you if
you follow the terms of A" and "I won't sue you if you follow the terms
of B". A and B don't have to be even remotely compatible with each
other.
--Tim Smith
-
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/