On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in > > its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary > > video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't > > link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. > > ---- > > > > I just wonder under what "impure" GPL license terms do you think Moglen > > thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is > > kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception > > for user space). > > > > Any thoughts? > > Perhaps this: > > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
And how does that make it "impure" GPL? Permission to relicense under revised later versions is not part of the GPL license terms. regards, alexander.
