Not quite. The thing *as a whole* is GPL-licensed, but its compenents
may be extracted under their original license terms.
> > No. GPL software may not be integrated with non-GPL-compatible
> > software. That's a significant difference, when the no-ads BSD
> > licence and the MIT licence are both GPL compatible.
>
> In my opinion this distinction is moot, because of the nature of the
> GPL itself.
"may not be integrated with non-GPL software" appears, to me, to refer
to software that is non-GPL *prior* to integration.
Your point about integrated software becoming GPLed as a whole refers to
*after* integration.
Therefore, the clause "may not be integrated with non-GPL software" is
an additional restriction beyond the GPL, which is not permitted by a
clause in the GPL, so the overall license is not GPL and is
self-contradictory.
Also "integrated" means different things to different people, including
lawyers. These different things have different consequences according
to the GPL's terms.
-- Jamie
-
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/