[...]
> Who gets to define what is and is not "self-contained"? Be inc?
> The module author(s)? The FSF? Nobody at all? My point is that there's
> no clear authority in these issues, and this is allowing people to define
> away parts of the GPL that they don't like.
There are three authorities:
- The precice language of the licence, and if this isn't cristal clear
- RMS and the FSF, who authored the licence, and if they don't clarify
- The code's owner
In any case, the code's owner can decide to relax the licence's terms, or
distribute the code under several totally different licences, or whatever.
This discussion is getting more and more ridiculous. Can we _please_ drop
the subject now?
-- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html