On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:04:01 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > >> > >> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. > >> 2. Patching it. > >> 3. Linking it with closed source code. > >> 4. Distributing the result. > >> > >> (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). > >> > >> Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on > >> you to show that you were allowed to do it. > > > > You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. > > The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't. > Selectively quoting... > > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program > except as expressly provided under this License... > > 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not > signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify > or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions > are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License... > > The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little > technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL > under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this, > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL > > so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear.
What's the purpose of these quotes? Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing selective reading you should read the whole thing. If that's too much just read the first few questions under "General understanding of the GPL" on the FAQ. -- Fernando Rodriguez
