> My concern is: If one includes it in kernel, either modularly,
> or statically linked using the GPL license: if they make
> modifications to this code, they are making mods to a GPL work,
> and unless they also allow their modifications to be licenced
> under MPL, you will not be able to relicense the resulting code
> with MPL. Since you can't force anyone to licence under both
> terms, the GPL wins, and any modifications done to the GPL work
> remain GPL unless the author of the mods gives the changes back
> under both licenses as well.
Now I understand your concern; thanks for explaining it.
If the kernel modules make it into a kernel distribution, I'll be more
than happy for them to stay GPL forever after. If enough people submit
patches based on copies of the code without the MPL notice (and it becomes
a hassle asking for permission to use the patch under the MPL) then the
packages I distribute will have the GPL notice instead of the MPL notice
in those files. And if the project is successful to the point where the
kernel modules and includes become a part of the standard kernel, even as
experimental code, then the DinX packages will probably stop containing
those sources. At that point the stuff that belongs in the kernel will be
GPL, and the user-space stuff will be MPL, and we should all be happy.
Right? :)
The intention of the dual licence at this stage is to make it easy to move
bits of code back and forth between the kernel and user sides, until we
get it right. Hopefully that will all settle down before we approach the
glorious goals mentioned above.
Cheers,
- Ben.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Williamson benw@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~benw/
-
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/