On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <jpetso@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is of > > > course GPL. > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to that > > > step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. It's out > > > of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that work. > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged into the > > kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases on GPL > > sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the MPL is not GPL > > compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively under the MPL and at the > > same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb maincode as a base, you are violating > > the GPL. > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good insight, for > > example, the Software Freedom Law Center at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > Regards, > > Jakob > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Em28xx mailing list > > Em28xx@xxxxxxxxxxx > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS also GPL automatically, isn't it? and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to MPL? regards marcel _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
