RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Hua Zhong]

> Nope, they #include Linux header files - at least in their 
> Linux version. 

So what? By the same argument they are derived work of Linux too.

This is exactly the flaw of "once you include my code, you are derived
work of mine".

> 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.

This is not a matter of copyright. This is a matter of "being derived or
not".

> 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.

I disagree. 

It all depends on how significant the inlined code is compared to the
whole work of the module. For inline functions, I don't see why using
them would be a significant part - by definition "inline" means
"small/trivial", otherwise you would not have inlined them.

Otherwise, since SCO found a few lines of code copied from Unix in Linux
source, are we saying the whole million lines of code is derived from
Unix?

> Regards,
> 
> Filip

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/