Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:12:22 +0100 | From | Filip Van Raemdonck <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:35:52AM -0800, Hua Zhong wrote: > > So far, I don't see any reason why a module that uses an > > inline function provided via a kernel header could be distributed in > > binary > > format without being a "derived work" and thus bound by the GPL. > > Yeah, the same reason that XFS, NUMA, etc are derived works from Unix > since they must include Unix header files.
Nope, they #include Linux header files - at least in their Linux version. Even if one version does #include Unix headers, that does not mean copyright to the rest of the code automatically belongs to the Unix copyright holder.
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.
Regards,
Filip
-- We have joy, we have fun, we have Linux on our Sun. - 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/
| |