[dundee] Legalese

[Andrew Clayton]

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 10:39, Colin Brough wrote:
> > After finding out I don't know as much as I though I did about
> > licensing on #tlug I thought it might be nice if next month (ie
> > November) we had a talk on GPL/MPL/BSD/OSL/Artistic/etc licenses and
> > what they actually mean.
> > 
> > If anyones interested/informed about such things and wants to do it
> > let me know. I'm very tempted myself actually so I might try and fight
> > you for it ;).
> 
> That sounds interesting (no, I'm not offering to fight you for it!).
> I think I'd be most interested in a potted summary of the practical
> ramifications of the different licenses, either as a developer or as
> user.
> 
> For instance:
> 
>  - nvidia drivers "taint" the kernel because of their license; what
>    difference does this make?
> 

Simple. MVIDIA have the kernel source, the kernel hackers don't have the
NVIDIA source.

The NVIDIA module could be doing anything to the kernel....


>  - the accusation that the GPL "creeps", since you can't have some of
>    a project under GPL and some under some other license... how does

Hmm.. you can certainly dual license code, with GPL has one of the
licenses.


>    the LGPL help?
> 

What the LGPL allows is the static linking of LGPL code with closed
source/proprietory code, e.g glibc is LGPL

 
>  - what light does any of this cast on the SCO thing?
> 

The only case SCO have is a contract dispute with IBM....


> Cheers
> 
> Colin



Andrew