RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Linus Torvalds
2003-12-05T20:15:01Z

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> >But what they do NOT have the right to do is to create derivative works of
> >the kernel, and distribute them to others.
>
> Yes, they do. Since they have the right to create the derived work and have
> not agreed to the GPL, the only thing that could restrict their distribution
> is the law, not the GPL. Please show me the law that permits a copyright
> holder to restrict the distribution of derived works.

I'm not going to argue with you any more. I am not a lawyer, and clearly
you aren't one either (or you're a really really bad one).

The "show me the law" is USC 17. It's called "US Copyright Law". As a
copyright holder in the Linux kernel, I _do_ have the right to restrict
the distribution of derived works. That's what copyright law is all about.

Your arguments are just vacuous and stupid.

I _very_ much have the right to restrict the distribution of derived
works, and that is what a license is all about. Without a license to
distribute, you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to distribute a derived work. What's
so hard to understand about that? And the only rights you have are rights
granted to you in some license.

And that license in this case is the GPL. Which does NOT grant you rights
to redistribute derived works without the source being available under the
same license.

End of discussion. You can whine all you like, but whining has never
changed reality.

Linus