Re: GPLv2 or not GPLv2? (no license bashing)

[Måns Rullgård]

vda <vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tuesday 09 March 2004 11:04, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> vda <vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > Well, Linux kernel is GPLed. If one adds his/hers code to the kernel
>> > (s)he is automatically agrees to the terms of GPL.
>> >
>> > Because "adds code" is actually incorrect here.  "modifies existing
>> > GPLed code" is more accurate.
>>
>> Suppose I write a new kernel module, without touching any existing
>> code, and this module gets included in the kernel tree.  Have I added
>> code?  Yes.  Have I modified GPLed code?  I think not.
>
> I believe Linus said so too wrt out-of-tree modules.
>
> I think modules included in 'official' tree better be GPLed
> or else phrase 'Linux kernel is GPLed' becomes meaningless.

That is true, but it doesn't necessarily make my code derived from
anything at all.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@xxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/