[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?
>     and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works.
> For example, suppose I ship you a tarball that has the source & binaries
> for both a GPLed program and a non GPLed helper program in it - does the
> non GPLed program become GPLed? I tend to doubt it and so do the lawyers.

The counter example is the Objective C compiler. There the helper was not usable
without the GPL compiler so was not a 'seperate work'

> Note that I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion on this is just that,
> my opinion. I have spent a fair amount of time and money trying to

Ditto but I spent favours not $15K chunks 8)

> you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine.
> If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to
> you that there really is no good reason not to just GPL it from the start.

Smart advice.

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 12:52    [W:0.072 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site