>>MH> Because the MPL licence is useless in the context of the
>>MH> software. The software is code that sits with the kernel. The
>>MH> only code that may be compiled into the kernel is code that is
>>MH> GPL'd or under a GPL compatible licence (which MPL is not).
>>MH> Thus, licencing under MPL makes the code useless, or it voids the
>>MH> MPL licence. If the only way to use the code is to use the GPL
>>MH> licence, then GPL wins.
>>
>>But this code can be compiled as module as well (may be not right now, though).
>>And then you can use any license at your choice. You need GPL if you want to
>>link it statically in kernel and you can add proprietary extensions (as MPL
>>allows) when using it as module. What's wrong here ?
>>
>>MH> So to simplify things, just say what it really is:
>>
>>MH> GPL licenced. Then say that others may obtain or use the code
>>MH> under MPL licence as well. If using the MPL licence however,
>>MH> they will not be able to link with the Linux kernel.
>>
>>Link - no. Load as module - yes. So MPL is usable here.
MH> If it modifies ANY existing kernel source, it would be in
MH> violation of GPL regardless of if it is linked monolithically or
MH> modularly.
Why ? Changes should be GPL'ed, but module itself. It'll be viloation
of GPL spirit, of course, but violation of GPL letter... I think not.
-
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/