[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: GPL only modules
    On Dec 17, 2006, at 08:54:17, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
    > On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
    >> Do you REALLY believe that a binary becomes a "derived work" of
    >> any random library that it gets linked against? If that's not
    >> "fair use" of a library that implements a standard library
    >> definition, I don't know what is.
    > Some disregard the fact that header files sometimes aren't just
    > interface definitions, but they also contain functional code, in
    > the form of preprocessor macros and inline functions, that, if
    > used, do make it to the binary.

    I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
    Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
    operations a good number of them (depending on architecture and
    version) are inline assembly that are directly output into the code
    which uses them. As a result any binary module which uses those
    functions from the Linux headers is fairly directly a derivative work
    of the GPL headers because it contains machine code translated
    literally from GPLed assembly code found therein. There are also a
    fair number of large perhaps-wrongly inline functions of which the
    use of any one would be likely to make the resulting binary

    On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license-
    compatible, are certainly not derivative works. The project was
    created independently of Linux and operates on several different
    operating systems, so even though it uses the very-Linux-specific
    keyring interfaces under 2.6, no GPL licensing could possibly apply.

    > The gray area between what is clearly permitted by a license and
    > the murky lines that determine what constitutes a derived work, and
    > what is fair use even if it's a derived work, is not for any of us
    > to decide. The best we can do is to offer interpretations on intent
    > of license authors and software authors, and of laws. Even though
    > we're not lawyers or judges, such interpretations may be taken into
    > account in court disputes.

    I agree, and I think that this thread has outlived its useful life.

    Kyle Moffett

    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: 2006-12-17 17:29    [W:0.021 / U:0.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site