Richard writes: > Think of the example of Microsoft or another proprietary OS vendor taking > some GPL-ed device driver code written for linux, putting a wrapper > around it in order to use it as a driver DLL and incorporating it into > their OS without needing to open source anything but the driver itself.
You evidently didn't read the entire quotation: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, _unless that component itself accompanies the executable_. Read the underlined part. It is specifically intended to prevent closed-source OS vendors from doing as you suggest. When the GPL was written Linux did not exist. Free Software had to run on closed-source operating systems: that's all there were. The GPL was written with that situation in mind. > I'd think that would be clearly against the spirit of the full GPL > licence as the Free Software Foundation see it, and as they drafted the > license I'd think that their opinion carries the weight legally and > morally. Their opinion carries no legal weight whatsoever with respect to software in which they own no copyright. The GPL is a model license, not a law and the FSF is a private foundation, not a court. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
