[linux-elitists] [dave@farber.net: [IP] more on next obvious question]

le le@drunkenlogic.com
Tue Jun 7 13:23:07 PDT 2005


On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 15:06 -0500, le wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 12:18 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:46:31PM -0500, le wrote:
> >  
> > > It doesn't match my understanding. They can be mixed and matched. The
> > > end result is that the GPL portions must maintain the GPL license. If
> > > someone wanted to distribute in binary only form, they would only need
> > > to remove the GPL portions from the binary. 
> > 
> > Thereby rendering the whole, "it just works" way that Apple machines
> > currently operate moot.  Hence my statement that this will not happen
> > from both a legal and as others have pointed out, techincal standpoint.

Sorry, forgot to fix the To: line

> But what do you feel is wrong with the inclusion of GPL software/drivers
> and including or making available the source code for those derived
> works? 
> 
> It still would just work if some effort went into the work before
> distribution. 
> 
> Nothing says the GPL portion need be complete functional code in it's
> own to be useful as a portion of another work. 
-- 
le <le@drunkenlogic.com>




More information about the linux-elitists mailing list