lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules
On 20 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 04:26, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:59:26AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > You can copyright songs, but not individual musical notes.
> > >
> > > Likewise, snippets of code aren't copyrightable if they're below
> > > a certain "triviality size".
> >
> > I don't pretend to be current on all the issues involved, but I've
> > always been under the impression that Linus has insisted that
> > binary-only drivers aren't derived works, with respect to the GPL.
>
> Linus has said much the reverse if you look back. Being a module doesnt
> make it not a derivative work. In some ways thats not even directly
> relevant

The double negative unwrapped:

"Being a module doesnt make it not a derivative work."

'Being a module does (not) make it not a derivative work.'
'Being a module does (not) make it (not) a derivative work.'

'Being a module does make it a derivative work.'

Is this the intent of the statement?

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

-
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:0.204 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site