Re: Announce: DinX windowing system 0.2.0

Mike A. Harris (mharris@meteng.on.ca)
Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:04:11 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:

>MH> Because the MPL licence is useless in the context of the
>MH> software. The software is code that sits with the kernel. The
>MH> only code that may be compiled into the kernel is code that is
>MH> GPL'd or under a GPL compatible licence (which MPL is not).
>MH> Thus, licencing under MPL makes the code useless, or it voids the
>MH> MPL licence. If the only way to use the code is to use the GPL
>MH> licence, then GPL wins.
>
>But this code can be compiled as module as well (may be not right now, though).
>And then you can use any license at your choice. You need GPL if you want to
>link it statically in kernel and you can add proprietary extensions (as MPL
>allows) when using it as module. What's wrong here ?
>
>MH> So to simplify things, just say what it really is:
>
>MH> GPL licenced. Then say that others may obtain or use the code
>MH> under MPL licence as well. If using the MPL licence however,
>MH> they will not be able to link with the Linux kernel.
>
>Link - no. Load as module - yes. So MPL is usable here.

If it modifies ANY existing kernel source, it would be in
violation of GPL regardless of if it is linked monolithically or
modularly.

--
Mike A. Harris                                     Linux advocate     
Computer Consultant                                  GNU advocate  
Capslock Consulting                          Open Source advocate


Join the FreeMWare project - the goal to produce a FREE program in
which you can run Windows 95/98/NT, and other operating systems.


                    http://www.freemware.org




-
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/