[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Input on the Non-GPL Modules - legal nonsense
    Ben Greear wrote:
    > Alan Cox wrote:
    > >
    > > > What prevents the author of a non-GPL module who needs access to a
    > > > GPL-only symbol from writing a small GPLed module which imports the
    > > > GPL-only symbol (this is allowed, because the small module is GPL),
    > > > and exports a basically identical symbol without the GPL-only
    > > > restriction?
    > >
    > > The fact that it ends up GPL'd to be linked (legal derivative work sense)
    > > to the GPL'd code so you can link it to either but not both at the same time
    > If you own the copyright to the small shim GPL piece, can anyone else
    > take legal action on your part? If not, then all you have to do is not
    > sue yourself for the double linkage and no one else can sue you either....

    I keep hearing this type of reasoning. It flat-out doesn't work
    this way in the legal system. This is similar to arguing that
    you didn't really stab someone if you threw the knife instead
    of holding it. ("But your honor, once the knife left my hand
    it really wasn't under my control...")

    If your actions bring about the result, whether
    directly or indirectly, you are legally liable for the
    Tim Bird Lineo, Inc.
    Senior VP, Research 390 South 400 West Lindon, UT 84042
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.021 / U:3.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site