Re: LGPL or GPL+"plugins welcome" ?

[Alexander Terekhov]

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> Parts of the kernel are copyright Linus Torvalds,
> thus your second statement is incorrect.

Idiot.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=11lMQ-6M2-9%40gated-at.bofh.it

<quote author=Torvalds>

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> How can the additional words alter the mean of GPL itself?

They can't.

But they _can_ alter your ability to sue. In particular, if you publicly
state that you will not sue anybody over something, they can now use that
statement to make future plans. If at a later date you decide to sue them
anyway, they can point the judge at your earlier statement, and claim
estoppel against you.

So note how the license itself didn't change - but your ability to
_enforce_ the license has changed by virtue of you stating that you won't.

<snip>

They're not part of the copyright license per se, they are expressly
marked as being my personal viewpoint. 

</quote>

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZdzT-4RC-1%40gated-at.bofh.it

<quote author=Torvalds>

Larry, you are wrong.

The license _IS_ the GPL. There's no issue about that. The GPL rules apply
100%.

But a license only covers what it _can_ cover - derived works. The fact
that Linux is under the GPL simply _cannot_matter_ to a user program, if
the author can show that the user program is not a derived work.

<snip>

the note at the top of the copying file is something totally
different: it's basically a statement to the effect that the copyright
holder recognizes that there are limits to a derived work, and spells out
one such limit that he would never contest in court.

</quote>

regards,
alexander.