On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
>
> > Naming aside, my point is that open source software is always, well,
> > open -- open to be picked up and carried by new interested parties.
> > Even more, the GPL subset of the open source pool can't spawn private
> > forks; this is even stronger insurance.
> >
> > So I don't worry about corporate interference. Not yet, anyway.
>
> Yes, I think that according to the GPL, any change that IBM makes in
> existing code would have to be also GPL. Now if they write their own
> separate piece, say a module, I think they can use any license they want.
> OSS does not distribute the source for their commercial sound stuff, do
> they?
>
> QUESTION: Say IBM wrote their own mmap.c replacement with no GPL code in
> it. Can they distribute a binary kernel image made with that mmap.c
> without distributing the source to that small program? I mean, can that
> particular mmap.c have a non-gpl license? In other words, they distribute
> only the source for the GPL parts of the code?
>
>
>
>
>
> George Bonser
>
> The Linux "We're never going out of business" sale at an FTP site near you!
>
>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/