David Miller wrote
| While more hooks may be in your interest, they are not in the interest
| of free software.
|
| I really hope you have competant legal advice for the things you are
| doing, because binary-only derivative works of a GPL work are illegal.
Thanks for the heads-up. What I propose to do is NOT to re-implement
some existing linux routine by reusing all or some of its code.
That is not only illegal, it's immoral.
In other words, the new routine will not be a derivative of the old one
or some other part of the kernel.
Instead, I'll create my own (cleanroom) handler that doesn't reuse any
existing code, which in the end will either pass control to the GPL routine
being replaced or destroy the parameters and return.
I can't see how that is a violation of GPL. If it is, then hundreds of
Linux startups had better go bankrupt now instead of fighting losing
legal battles later.
S.N.
-
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 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:23 EST