[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?


Thanks for the clarification !

So as I suspected and validated via other means, the content of the
headers are not an issue as it relates to GPL as many claim.

Well I have gotten side requests that I was late in joining the thread
party and I am distracting you from patch merging. This is a fair point,
and we can restart after 2.6.0 is out.


Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> >
> > So why not do the removal of the inlines to real .c files and quit playing
> > games with bogus attempts to bleed taint into the inprotectable api?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.147 / U:6.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site