RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Ingo Molnar
2003-12-10T21:18:05Z

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> I have and the lawyers tell me that it is one or the other and can not
> be both. So explain to me how a GPL/BSD or BSD/GPL works again?

ugh. Are your lawyers saying that the tons of dual-licensed code is not a
valid license? Seems like your lawyers disagree with lots of other
lawyers.

> Also if one does an md5sum on the "COPYING" file from FSF and compares
> it from the one in the kernel source they differ.

here's the (trivial) diff. Draw your own conclusions.

--- libc/COPYING 2001-07-06 07:57:07.000000000 +0200
+++ v/COPYING 2003-11-23 13:21:58.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,19 @@
+
+ NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
+ services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
+ of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
+ Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
+ Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
+ kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
+
+ 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.
+
+ Linus Torvalds
+
+----------------------------------------
+
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991