RE: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
- From: "David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:28:42 -0700
Chase Venters wrote:
can you name some non-GPL non-proprietary modules we should be concerned
about?
You probably meant "non-GPL-compatible non-proprietary". If so, then by
definition there are none.
Regards,
Daniel
Are you saying that there do not exist any non-proprietary licenses that
are incompatible with the GPL? That's obviously not true. Consider, for
example, a license that was basically the BSD license with an additional
prohibition against licensing with new restrictions. Consider the original
BSD license with advertising clause. Consider a license that requires the
source to always travel with the binary.
DS
-
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/
- References:
- Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
- From: Daniel Phillips
- Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
- Prev by Date: Re: [discuss] [PATCH 1/2] (resend) x86_64 stack overflow debugging
- Next by Date: Re: [discuss] [PATCH 1/2] (resend) x86_64 stack overflow debugging
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
