lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.020 / U:59.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site