On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:32:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:20:39PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Yes, thought so, since the GPL only applies on redistribution, not on > > > something you do in-house. > > > But i think it would be fine to have the exemption and the > > > redistribution rights of the proprietary .o nonethless. > > If the exemption is not needed, it's better to *not* have it, since any > > exemption weakens the GPL to some extent. > Well, yes, but that means that if i send you a built package because you > cannot get hold of the kernel source, since you don't have the driver > for the ADSL modem and have to copy stuff by floppy, that the copyright > holder can sue me about this ? That's correct. > More seriously though, will a BSD licence be more appropriate here ? That depends on the wishes of the copyright holder. If they don't *mind* their code being reused in proprietary linkages, then a BSD license is fine. If they chose the GPL for philosophical reasons, then I would think they would want to hold onto the full strength of the GPL here. > BTW, would it be worth it to aks [EMAIL PROTECTED] if they could include a > ADSL software emulation in their todo list ? I'm not familiar with the list, but I'm guessing this item won't be given high priority since the FSF is unlikely to have anyone on staff who's sufficiently familiar with ADSL signalling. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpn7S0q3GxWe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
