[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?
    On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 07:18:12AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > 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.

    They've certainly been brought up here over and over as an example of
    included work that forces 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.

    So what? Plugins have a nasty tendency to have to be updated when the
    main program is updated. That doesn't mean that the Netscape license
    is allowed to control the flash plugin license. I think (and very
    much hope) that your idea of a derived work is flawed. Otherwise you
    are helping make case law that is going to screw a lot people of over.
    If you think Microsoft won't use your expanded definition of what is a
    derived work, think again.
    Larry McVoy lm at
    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:0.036 / U:165.468 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site