| 1 |
On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. |
| 4 |
>> 2. Patching it. |
| 5 |
>> 3. Linking it with closed source code. |
| 6 |
>> 4. Distributing the result. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on |
| 11 |
>> you to show that you were allowed to do it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't. |
| 16 |
Selectively quoting... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program |
| 19 |
except as expressly provided under this License... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not |
| 22 |
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify |
| 23 |
or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions |
| 24 |
are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little |
| 27 |
technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL |
| 28 |
under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this, |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear. |
Archives