Re: Announce: DinX windowing system 0.2.0

Ben Williamson (benw@pobox.com)
Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:50:25 +1000 (EST)

The intention of using the MPL with GPL option is that anyone making a
Linux kernel distribution can take whatever files they need from DinX,
replace the MPL notice with the GPL notice, and put them in the
distribution, perhaps to be statically linked. This is my understanding
of what the Netscape lawyers meant when they wrote:

* Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms
* of the GNU General Public license (the "[GPL] License"), in which case
* the provisions of [GPL] License are applicable instead of those
* above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only
* under the terms of the [GPL] License and not to allow others to use
* your version of this file under the MPL, indicate your decision by
* deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice and
* other provisions required by the [GPL] License. If you do not delete
* the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file
* under either the MPL or the [GPL] License.

I'm sorry you seem to be annoyed by my choice of the MPL. I did read it
carefully and gave it plenty of thought before making that choice. I
chose the MPL because it says what I want to say better than I could have
said it.

If folks on the linux-kernel list are of the general opinion that I'm
completely wrong and that the MPL/GPL would prohibit the DinX kernel
modules from ever becoming part of a statically linked kernel
distribution, please let me know asap so that we can resolve this while
the contributor list is still short. Thanks.

BTW, IANAL.

- Ben.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Williamson benw@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~benw/

On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Mike A. Harris wrote:

[ snip ]

> Because the MPL licence is useless in the context of the
> software. The software is code that sits with the kernel. The
> only code that may be compiled into the kernel is code that is
> GPL'd or under a GPL compatible licence (which MPL is not).
> Thus, licencing under MPL makes the code useless, or it voids the
> MPL licence. If the only way to use the code is to use the GPL
> licence, then GPL wins.
>
> So to simplify things, just say what it really is:
>
> GPL licenced. Then say that others may obtain or use the code
> under MPL licence as well. If using the MPL licence however,
> they will not be able to link with the Linux kernel.

-
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/