On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> I was under the understanding a "patch" to something GPL, means
> the "patch" is also GPL. If the patch was not GPL, and it
> patches GPL code, then it itself is in violation of the GPL.
> The fact that the patch is a "derivative work" of the original
> GPL code, means it is GPL wether stated or not.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.
Of course, this is /only/ the case for pieces of code
which depend on the context of GPL code. Pieces of the
code which can be used independantly (say, a separate
.c file or a large function) can be dual licensed by
-- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:20 EST