Subject: Re: GPL'd kernel parts
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <email@example.com>
Date: 09/12/1996 20:03:40
> On Sep 11, 2:54pm, Michael Graff wrote:
> > Subject: Re: GPL'd kernel parts
> > Ignatios Souvatzis <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > The GPL requires that every code which is linked with GPL'd code into
> > > a single binary to be placed under GPL, too. This would directly
> > > violate UCB's licensing conditions (and similar conditions from other
> > > universities), which requires us to keep them unchanged. This even
> > > holds if we wouldn't mind making the code unusable for people which do
> > > binary-only distributions (because of, say, special code for own
> > > hardware which they don't want to disclose).
> > So, if someone has, say, a motif application for linux, and it happens
> > to be linked to their libc, we could demand to get their sources?
> No. There are two GNU licenses. One is the application license and the other is
> the library license. If libc was licensed with the application license rather
> than the library license then we would be able to demand source.
Not really. It would just have been illegal to distribute statically
linked binaries of Motif _at all_.