There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the individual file copyright notices.
andrew On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
