RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

From: Hua Zhong
Date: Fri Dec 05 2003 - 15:28:09 EST

> I'll rephrase what I wrote and what people have been saying
> all the time:
> "Once you build a binary module, it contains our (inlined)
> code and thus the binary module is a derived work."

Understood and that's what we disagree.

By the way, what's so different between code and data, anyway?

Are inline functions more important than macros and defs?

> > 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?
> We have yet to see if they actually found code.

We have. Some malloc function as I remember, and has been removed from
current Linux sources.

> And no; we're not saying all code is a derived work. We're
> saying that if there is a few lines of copied code, then the
> compiled kernel which contains object code coming from
> these lines is a derived work. If.

You are trying to hide the fact that the kernel "sources" actually
contained copyrighted code.

Binary modules do not _contain_ copyrighted (GPL'ed) code, they merely
_include_ it (by #inlucde), but the _compiled_ binary modules contain
compiled copyrighted (GPL'ed) code.

So you are saying, binary modules contain compiled GPL'ed code, so it's
derived work of GPL'ed code. But kernel sources contained copyrighted
(non-GPL'ed) code, but the sources were not derived work of that code,
only the compiled form was?

> 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
Please read the FAQ at