Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:41:39 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |