Re: GPL version 3
James Mastros (theorb@iname.com)
Sun, 15 Feb 1998 16:00:33 -0500
Teddy Hogeborn wrote in message ...
>Mike Shaver <shaver@netscape.com> writes:
>
>> Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>> That may be fixable. See the Linux Kernel Module system, although
>> you should also note that the GPL makes no explicit mention of the
>> binary-linking/defined-interface taint exemption, and a GPL-like
>> Netscape license would almost certainly have to codify that
>> practice.
It's rather interesting that the COPYING file distributed with Linux has a
specific note that programs calling the kernel functions do NOT (need to)
fall under the kernel liscence (IE GPL). Then again, it's also interesting
that that little snippet makes no mention of kernel modules. (BTW - That's
the reason for the CC)
>So just work with the FSF to create a clarified version, and have them
>endorse it as GPLv3.
>
>It *would* be a big benefit for both Netscape and the FSF if the
>Netscape license would be a version of the GPL, so I'm sure you can
>work it out together.
Why? Programs can just as easly be under the NPL (Netscape Public License)
as the GPL (GNU Public License).
>/Teddy
-=- James Mastros
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu