Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:16:37 -0800 (PST) | | From | Andre Hedrick <> | | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
Linus,
Thanks for the clarification !
So as I suspected and validated via other means, the content of the headers are not an issue as it relates to GPL as many claim.
Well I have gotten side requests that I was late in joining the thread party and I am distracting you from patch merging. This is a fair point, and we can restart after 2.6.0 is out.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > > So why not do the removal of the inlines to real .c files and quit playing > > games with bogus attempts to bleed taint into the inprotectable api? > > The inlines have nothing to do with _anything_. > > Trust me, a federal judge couldn't care less about some very esoteric > technical detail. I don't know who brought up inline functions, but they > aren't what would force the GPL. > > What has meaning for "derived work" is whether it stands on its own or > not, and how tightly integrated it is. If something works with just one > particular version of the kernel - or depends on things like whether the > kernel was compiled with certain options etc - then it pretty clearly is > very tightly integrated. > > Don't think that copyright would depend on any technicalities. > > Linus >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |