The GPL 2.0 uses language that makes it pretty clear that it was meant to
describe the source code, not the object module. It uses "source code" to
refer to what is licensed under the GPL several times.
The GPL has been a great source for nebulous debates without much in the
way of solid ground to stand on. It's not remarkable that it has a history
in academia.
Too bad those who drafted the GPL were not (competent) lawyers, either.
} Your compiled object module might be a derived work, hence its
} distribution would be restricted by the terms of the GPL version 2.
} Your source code file would not be a derived work (under certain
} currently widely-held assumptions about interface copyrights), and
} hence could be distributed without restriction by the GPL.
}
} Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
}
} Craig Milo Rogers
} -
} 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/
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 21:00:46 EST