On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Bill Studenmund wrote:

> The thing is that our kernel contains code with explicit directions on what
> you can and can't do with it, typically words like "you can use it, but
> you can't say you wrote it, you have to keep this message intact, and
> no warranty." Adding more restrictions on its distribution is NOT an
> option given to us by the copyright holder. But under GPL, we'd have to
> ensure that all future modifications of the whole thing were GPL'd.
> We'd have to change the restrictions on code we got from others.

I've heard this before, and I'm a little confused about it.  Down near the
bottom of the GPL, there's a clause that says that portions of a GPL'ed 
program may be redistributed within another free work without placing the
new conglomerate work under the GPL, provided that the original author of
the relevant GPL'ed code gives permission (Section II, subsection 10).  Do
I take this to imply that Linus won't give permission?

> run time. So a GPL'd lkm is fine for us, and a non-GPL'd lkm is fine for
> them.

Like an ext2fs lkm?

Later,

 /---------------------------------------------------------------------\
|David A. Gatwood             And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,  |
|davagatw@mars              Went home and put a bullet through his head.|
|dgatwood@nyx.cs.du.edu              --Edwin Arlington Robinson         |
|http://mars.utm.edu/~davagatw -or- http://nox.cs.du.edu:8001/~dgatwood |
 \---------------------------------------------------------------------/