On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> Whilst the Linux kernel itself is `meant' to be GPL'd, there
> would appear to be some doubt about whether the GPL would allow
> such files to be included (no sub-licensing, etc). Has anyone
> received legal advice about whether those files do in fact
> represent a further restriction that would conflict with the
> GPL ?
Supposedly they did, in the advertising clause, but the Regents of the
University of California relicensed all of their code such that you can
ignore the advertising clause.
(see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html and
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change)
No one has ever sued over it, AFAIK.
Also the GPL says:
# These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
# identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
# and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
# themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
# sections when you distribute them as separate works.
Which means we could still distribute them as seperately, should a legal
challenge come up.
> If so, can they still be (re)distributed with Linux ?
It was only a theoretical problem before, now its not even that.
-- Aaron Denney -><-- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:22 EST