Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> "worst" that would happen if some copyright holders would try to get
> as retentive as you try to be, is that NPTL would be factored out of
> glibc and made a separate GPLed library.

That would be fun.

> 
> > P.S. Linus: The "user program" exception is not an exception at all.
> 
> That's why it is not called an exception but a clarification.  You
> are really fond of straw men.
> 
> Date:   Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:00:21 -0800 (PST)
> From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
> To:     Kendall Bennet
> cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
> 
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:
> >
> > I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux
> > Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an
> > exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be
> > under the GPL.
> 
> Nope. No such exception exists.

Yeah. 

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaava.helsinki.fi

More fun:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030318034040/http://people.redhat.com/rkeech/pkm.html

And this is the winner:

http://www.gcom.com/home/support/whitepapers/linux-gnu-license.html

"In summary, if Alan's objections have any legal standing it is only 
 regarding portions of the kernel in which he is the copyright owner. 
 LiS does not use any such modules, it only uses core kernel 
 services of which Linus is the copyright holder, and Linus has 
 already stated that these services are to be considered LGPL."

regards,
alexander.