Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules

From: Giacomo Catenazzi (cate@debian.org)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 04:05:31 EST


Andre Hedrick wrote:

> On 20 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>
> >On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 18:57, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> >
> >>The double negative unwrapped:
> >>
> >>"Being a module doesnt make it not a derivative work."
> >>
> >>'Being a module does (not) make it not a derivative work.'
> >>'Being a module does (not) make it (not) a derivative work.'
> >>
> >>'Being a module does make it a derivative work.'
> >>
> >>Is this the intent of the statement?
> >
> >No
>
>
> Excellent!
>
> Now if Linus would just make to position clear.

Check this Linus' post: recent and with clear statment:
http://lwn.net/Articles/13066/
[Full discussion in http://lwn.net/Articles/13398/, support LWN!]

ciao
        giacomo

-
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 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:35 EST