[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?
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
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:0.161 / U:11.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site