Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> |       This software may be used and distributed according to the terms of
> |       the GNU General Public License (GPL), incorporated herein by 
> reference.

Good.

> |       Drivers based on or derived from this code fall under the GPL and must
> |       retain the authorship, copyright and license notice.  This file is not
> |       a complete program and may only be used when the entire operating

It IS "a complete program" and the guy doesn't seem to understand 
what a copyright permission is. Even the holy GPL says that "The 
act of running the Program is not restricted".

[... BSD and etc. non-GPL'ed modules ...]

> Thus, your utterance to the effect that
> 
> > The kernel is licensed under the GPL without any exceptions.
> 
> is incorrect.

You got me. Linus copyright on compilation (it's licensed under the 
terms of GPL and only the GPL) aside for a moment, I'll correct my
statement. There's only one GPL (without any exceptions) license
that governs GPL'ed kernel source code modules. GPL-INC (GPL with 
immunization for normal calls) is a myth. Okay now?

regards,
alexander.