Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:56:09 +0100 | From | 'Filip Van Raemdonck' <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:37:51AM -0800, Hua Zhong wrote: > > Nope, they #include Linux header files - at least in their > > Linux version. > > So what? By the same argument they are derived work of Linux too. > > This is exactly the flaw of "once you include my code, you are derived > work of mine".
I'll rephrase what I wrote and what people have been saying all the time:
"Once you build a binary module, it contains our (inlined) code and thus the binary module is a derived work."
> > And we're not even talking about source code; we're talking about > > _binary modules_. Which do include object code which comes from GPLed > > (inline) code; and are thus derived works. > > I disagree. > > It all depends on how significant the inlined code is compared to the > whole work of the module. For inline functions, I don't see why using > them would be a significant part - by definition "inline" means > "small/trivial", otherwise you would not have inlined them. > > Otherwise, since SCO found a few lines of code copied from Unix in Linux > source, are we saying the whole million lines of code is derived from > Unix?
We have yet to see if they actually found code.
And no; we're not saying all code is a derived work. We're saying that if there is a few lines of copied code, then the compiled kernel which contains object code coming from these lines is a derived work. If.
Regards,
Filip
-- <rcw> debian comes in behind redhat, slackware, suse, and mandrake when searching google for 'linux distribution' <asuffield> try "best linux distribution" - 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/
| |