Messages in this thread | | | From | "Hua Zhong" <> | Subject | RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:15:15 -0800 |
| |
> The inlines have nothing to do with _anything_. > > Trust me, a federal judge couldn't care less about some very esoteric > technical detail. I don't know who brought up inline > functions, but they aren't what would force the GPL.
Great!
> What has meaning for "derived work" is whether it stands on its own or > not, and how tightly integrated it is. If something works > with just one particular version of the kernel - or depends on things like > whether the kernel was compiled with certain options etc - then it pretty > clearly is very tightly integrated.
Many userspace programs fall into this category too. For example they depend on /proc to be there. They probably only work with a certain version of the kernel because the next version changed some format in /proc.
Is /proc a stable API/ABI? Yes? No?
> Don't think that copyright would depend on any technicalities. > > Linus > - > 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/ >
- 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/
| |