Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:57:58 -0800 (PST) | From | Andre Hedrick <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |