Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 09:43 UTC
Permalink for comment 374898
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 21:46 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-16
Apparently you did not read my post thoroughly. They did own 100% of the code. However, as soon as they link it to the kernel, it is "derived work" of the kernel. There is where they loose the right to dual-license: They are not allowed to link Non-GPL licensed code to the kernel.
That is, effectively, what they call the 'viral' effect. I don't mean it negatively. I use GPL for my software myself.