[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
Linus Torvalds wrote:

> But also note how it's only the BINARY MODULE that is a derived work. Your
> source code is _not_ necessarily a derived work, and if you compile it for
> another operating system, I'd clearly not complain.
> This is the "stand-alone short story" vs "extra chapter without meaning
> outside the book" argument. See? One is a work in its own right, the other
> isn't.

We currently have a situation where an external company supplies us with
a device driver containing a binary blob that was explicitly written as
OS-agnostic, and a shim that is gpl'd (at least the linux shim is) to
get the appropriate os-specific services. I guess this would fall under
the "not made just for linux" category in which you've placed the Nvidia

Carrying on your analogy, this could be a generic love scene, with
blanks in which to insert the character's names and location.


Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email:

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.164 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site