Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs
ibmalone at gmail.com
Mon Nov 27 22:38:53 UTC 2006
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 04:26, Ian Malone wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 14:21, Ian Malone wrote:
>>>>> That would be an interesting challenge. Does the modification
>>>>> that Linus added to the copyright have the same weight as
>>>>> the GPL in applying to everything subsequently added?
>>>> ? The code is covered by GPL 2.
>>> Beg your pardon, but the COPYING file included with the
>>> last kernel source I saw (admittedly a 2.4.x...) was
>>> not the same as a stock GPL 2 and points out that programs
>>> that interface with kernel system calls are not
>>> derived works.
>> Pardon granted ;) If that's the licence you make
>> and submit changes under then that's the one you're
>> bound by.
> No, he didn't modify the part of the GPL that says
> the 'work as a whole' must be distributed under the
> same terms. To whatever extent the GPL is valid, it
> has to apply to any modifications or they can't be
> distributed. The whole point of the GPL is that
> people making changes have no choice about the license
> terms that must be applied.
What are we disagreeing about?
More information about the users