Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Quote of the week: Free kernel driversQuote of the week: Free kernel driversPosted Nov 9, 2005 3:24 UTC (Wed) by hw2 (guest, #33718)In reply to: Quote of the week: Free kernel drivers by James200511 Parent article: Quote of the week
Answers: (IANAL)
1. It can be both. Public domain code is compatible with the GPL. Therefore, a person can then take the public domain code and create a work that would then be distributed under the GPL, with the person doing the "taking" becoming the copyright holder on the "new" work. Public domain code is a free-for-all. Individuals can take public domain code and created closed-source works from that code.
2. By interface layer, do you mean code? See answer #1.
3. Absolutely nothing. All it means is that portions of the kernel code become public domain and then people can do whatever they want with the public domain code. It does not mean that the same code in the kernel stops being covered by the GPL. In effect, the code in question becomes dual licensed (GPL and public domain).
4. You betcha.
5. Ummm, nothing prevents the copyright holder from licensing their work under multiple licenses, one of which is the GPL. This is not unusual. Have you honestly never heard of dual licensed code before?
Here is a Wiki link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license
6. Your entire line of questioning and reasoning is deeply flawed and, hence, irrelevant. The Copyright holder, excluding fair-use exceptions, makes all the decisions about how their code can be used when that use falls under Copyright. It does not matter one iota if Microsoft chooses to license their code one way and another copyright holder chooses to license their code under the GPL, BSD, Artistic License, etc.
Once again, look at dual licensing. The copyright holder can have multiple, entirely different licenses for the _exact_ same code. According to you, this copyright holder should be hauled in front of a court for the audacity of legally exercising his rights as copyright holder...
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||