Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:52:02 -0200 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules |
| |
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> So, since spinlocks and semaphores are (a) inline and #included into > your code, and (b) required for just about sane interoperation with Linux... > > does this mean that all binary-only modules that #include kernel code > such as spinlocks are violating the GPL?
> But who knows if #include'd code constitutes a derived work :(
Only if the #included snippets of code are large enough to be protected by copyright, which might be true of the stuff in mm_inline.h and of some of the semaphore code, but probably isn't true of the spinlock code.
Even if the code #included is large enough to be protected by copyright I don't know if the code including it would be considered a derived work. Many questions remaining...
regards,
Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>
- 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/
| |