Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:25:37 -0500 | From | Chris Friesen <> | Subject | Re: 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 driver?
Carrying on your analogy, this could be a generic love scene, with blanks in which to insert the character's names and location.
Chris
-- 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: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com
- 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/
|  |