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
Alan Cox wrote:

> On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 19:55, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> >So " -fno-inline " should be enough to squelch the extremists?
>
>
> Its not relevant to the discussion even.


That's $topic AFAICS. Some armchair lawyers are alleging that
#include'ing GPL'd kernel code into non-GPL'd binary kernel module makes
that module a derivative work and thus must be GPL'd itself.

Have we decided that #include'ing GPL'd code does, or does not, taint
otherwise "license-clean" code that includes the GPL'd code?

The only thing I've seen from Linus is him mentioning that this is a
"grey area". Given this message:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103487469728730&w=2

we fall to copyright law, and wonder aloud if an obviously-non-derived
work #includes GPL'd code, does it become derived?

Jeff



-
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:0.055 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site