lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Module Licensing? (thinking a little more)
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 05:18:04PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:00:45PM +0100, Drizzt Do'Urden wrote:
> > Yes, clause 3.a) "machine readable source code". A .s file is, "machine
> > readable source code" by the assembler and by people that have enough time
> > to lost.. It is like head.S, but using numeric labels and other stuff of
> > that kind.
>
> Sigh.
>
> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it."

So someone who takes a GPLed Perl program and reimplements it in, say,
C can be sued by the Perl person (since he, presumably, prefers Perl)?

--
"He who fights with monsters might take care, lest he thereby become a
monster." - Nietzsche
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.087 / U:18.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site