Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

[Pekka Enberg]

On Feb 9, 2008 5:13 PM, Christer Weinigel <christer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But lets say that the b-tree code uses Linux-only primitives such as
> kmalloc or spinlocks, and that I wrote the code specifically for the
> Linux kernel, does that make it into a derivative work?
>
> What if I do a trivial replace of the kmalloc calls with malloc and the
> spinlock calls with pthread locks instead, has my code been forever
> tainted by being written for Linux so that I can't do that anymore?
> What if I go the other way and write my code using the posix functions
> to begin with and do the equally trivial replace of malloc with
> kmalloc?

As the copyright owner, you're free to distribute the original parts
as you wish as long as it doesn't contain anything that is derived
work. So, when you remove those kmalloc/spin_lock calls, you're
_obviously not_ tainted. But that doesn't mean you're free to
distribute it when it _does_ contain derived work. Besides, a device
driver can't even be compared to something as trivial as b-tree
implementation that uses kmalloc/spin_lock in terms of "is it derived
work or not."

Thanks for the straw man, though!
--
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/