[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
    Linus Torvalds wrote:

    > But also note how it's only the BINARY MODULE that is a derived work. Your
    > source code is _not_ necessarily a derived work, and if you compile it for
    > another operating system, I'd clearly not complain.
    > This is the "stand-alone short story" vs "extra chapter without meaning
    > outside the book" argument. See? One is a work in its own right, the other
    > isn't.

    We currently have a situation where an external company supplies us with
    a device driver containing a binary blob that was explicitly written as
    OS-agnostic, and a shim that is gpl'd (at least the linux shim is) to
    get the appropriate os-specific services. I guess this would fall under
    the "not made just for linux" category in which you've placed the Nvidia

    Carrying on your analogy, this could be a generic love scene, with
    blanks in which to insert the character's names and location.


    Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
    Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
    3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
    Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email:

    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 13:59    [W:0.022 / U:40.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site