lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range
    Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
    >
    > Yes. Andrew, please read the GPL, it's very clear about derived works.
    > Then please tell me why you think gpfs is not a derived work.

    OK, so I looked at the wrapper. It wasn't a tremendously pleasant
    experience. It is huge, and uses fairly standard-looking filesytem
    interfaces and locking primitives. Also some awareness of NFSV4 for some
    reason.

    Still, the wrapper is GPL so this is not relevant. Its only use is to tell
    us whether or not the non-GPL bits are "derived" from Linux, and it
    doesn't do that.

    The GPL doesn't define a derived work. It says

    "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
    Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works
    in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
    sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
    distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
    the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
    License, ..."

    And the "But when you distribute..." part is what the Linus doctrine rubs
    out. Because it is unreasonable to say that a large piece of work such as
    this is "derived" from Linux.

    Why do you believe that GPFS represents a kernel licensing violation?
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.022 / U:31.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site