This is an "Alice in Wonderland" argument. Yes, the components could
theoretically be distributed under their original license terms, but this
has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of an integrated product
under other licensing 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.
The reiserfs code would be distributed after integration. So the status of
the code prior to such integration is irrelevant since that prior code has
nothing to do with reiserfs. The resierfs licensing code only pertains to
reiserfs or any works derived from it.
> 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.
Umm, no. Your argument is absurd.
> Also "integrated" means different things to different people, including
> lawyers. These different things have different consequences according
> to the GPL's terms.
I think it's very clear that "integrated" means a derived work (which is a
very precise term under copyright law). If you can think of any other
meaning, please offer it.
DS
-
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/