Re: cdrdao license issues show that cdrtools package is non DFSG, too?

2002-10-04 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:20:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> cdrecord has this: [...] >> | - The fact that cdrecord is linked against libedc_ecc does not >> |make libedc_ecc licensed under GPL. Section 2 of the GPL does >> |not apply in

Licence for Kernel modules

2002-10-04 Thread cgb
Hi, today I came across an article in the German magazine "Elektronik" (20/2002, p. 82) which states that in contrary to user space apps a kernel module must always be GPLed (refering to Linux). The argument goes that way that a hardware driver is to be interpreted as a modification/enhancement of

Re: cdrdao license issues show that cdrtools package is non DFSG, too?

2002-10-04 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 22:26, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:48:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > In short (as I understand it), placing software under the GPL with > > additional restrictions simply doesn't work. > > It does, if you dual-license it. If you don't, then in

Re: cdrdao license issues show that cdrtools package is non DFSG, too?

2002-10-04 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 17:04, Andreas Metzler wrote: > |- > | This software is under GPL with the following limitations: > | > | > | - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c > | > | See cdrecord.c for further information. hmmm? cdre

Re: Licence for Kernel modules

2002-10-04 Thread Peter Makholm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Could I get comments on that. I would like to write to the editor of > that magazine as this statement may keep (embedded) hardware developers > away from Linux. Read The following message from Linus on gnu.misc.discuss from December 1995:

Re: Licence for Kernel modules

2002-10-04 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
Please search the archives of the linux-kernel mailing list. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=linux.kernel There have been numerous flame wars on this topic over there. A quick search for "binary only" turned up: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&th=e56cd20ae60b0c3f&rnu

Re: Licence for Kernel modules

2002-10-04 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:02:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > today I came across an article in the German magazine "Elektronik" > (20/2002, p. 82) which states that in contrary to user space apps a > kernel module must always be GPLed (refering to Linux). The argument > goes that way that

Re: cdrdao license issues show that cdrtools package is non DFSG, too?

2002-10-04 Thread Branden Robinson
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:09:04AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Hmm? > > Given the choice of the dual licenses: >"You can take my software, and use it under the GPL" > or >"You can take my software, and use it under something that > sort of looks like the GPL, but does't allow