Subject: Re: softdep
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
Date: 11/22/1999 22:04:48
Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The entire kernel doesn't become GPL'd, but the inclusion of that one file
> restricts your ability to distribute that kernel - you have to distribute
> it under terms as free as the GPL (though not necessarily GPL'd). Chunks
> of code currently in our kernel source has other restrictions, such as
> advertizing clauses. These clauses are more restrictive than the freeness
> of GPL. Thus they can't mix..
No, it's not that simple. It requires you to distribute the entire
`derivative work' under terms with the same virus clause -- meaning
that any derivative of that work is then `infected' by the GPL -- EVEN
IF THE ORIGINAL GPLED CODE IS REMOVED.
This is why it's known as the `General Public Virus', and why it's not
welcome in NetBSD.