> that there are some files (e.g. linux/drivers/net/bsd_comp.c)
> which are licensed under the BSD license and not the GPL.
They are built only as modules for a reason
> Whilst the Linux kernel itself is `meant' to be GPL'd, there
> would appear to be some doubt about whether the GPL would allow
> such files to be included (no sub-licensing, etc). Has anyone
> received legal advice about whether those files do in fact
> represent a further restriction that would conflict with the
> GPL ? If so, can they still be (re)distributed with Linux ?
> Afterall, it is not appropriate to just remove the offending
> lines...
I talked to a genuine authentic lawyer[1] about the GPL v BSD stuff a few
years ago: [1] non internet ..
o GPL + BSD without advertising clause appears to be completely
ok. Ditto the XFree86 one
o GPL + BSD with advertising clause is not compatible and the
advertising clause is clearly an 'additional restriction'
In general GPL + anything is a no go unless the 'anything' is extremely non
restrictive. The GPL draws an arbitary line and labels one side free they
other not.
Since UC Berkeley dropped the advertising clause from their parts of the code
its possible this problem has actually vanished by default in the kernel case
now. I've not checked the documentation to figure this out.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:22 EST