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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans