[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <or1wfwznz5.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:45:18 -0300
From: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@....ic.unicamp.br>
To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc: davids@...master.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?
On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net> wrote:
> Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections
> do. They are distributing in line with the distribution requirement,
> but not the "modification and copying" requirements. These are
> granted early in the license and covered by the "no further
> restrictions" clause.
> You have to be able to copy and modify the source code for it to
> comply with the GPL.
Let's hope courts see it this way.
But then, why is it that I can't use hardware to stop someone from
copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not so?
Remember, section 2 talks about modifying *your* *copies* of the
Program, without any reference whatsoever as to whether they're in
source or object form.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@...dhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@...d.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists