Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:32:54 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 07:18:12AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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.
They've certainly been brought up here over and over as an example of included work that forces 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.
So what? Plugins have a nasty tendency to have to be updated when the main program is updated. That doesn't mean that the Netscape license is allowed to control the flash plugin license. I think (and very much hope) that your idea of a derived work is flawed. Otherwise you are helping make case law that is going to screw a lot people of over. If you think Microsoft won't use your expanded definition of what is a derived work, think again. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
| |