> 
> 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?

Hmm. I'm not familiar with this part. How would one confirm permission?
I have heard of (and seen) pick-and-choose copyrights where you can
choose to either distribute under GPL or under a BSD-esque copyright.
Are they refering to this technique? I've actually considered putting
some code under a pick-and-choose, mainly to promote its use. But first
I need to write something which people want in a GPL'd system. ;-)

> > 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?

Exactly. FreeBSD has the ext2fs in their lkms, and in a sys/gnu directory.
You can compile it into a kernel, you just can't distribute that
kernel to anyone else.

Take care,

Bill