[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070615114921.GC6269@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:49:21 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
debian developer <debiandev@...il.com>, david@...g.hm,
Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> Who cares about whether the module is a derivative work? That's only
> relevant when you distribute the module as a separate work. When you
> ship a combined work including both the kernel and the module in
> question, it's a _whole_ lot easier to interpret the GPL.
i fully support the notion you articulate, that whether bin-only modules
are part of a derivative work of the kernel or whether they are
independent works is not an automatic thing at all. The answer is: "it
depends, talk to your lawyer". For example i'd say VMWare's ESX bin-only
module is likely derived from the Linux kernel and should be distributed
under the GPL, but that for example the ATI and nvidia drivers, although
being a large PITA for all of us, are possibly independent works.
but lets note that this is irrelevant to the Tivo argument. Tivo is not
using bin-only modules AFAIK, all their source code is available for
download. (their kernel source is totally uninteresting by the way -
they have some weird crap IDE controller with hacks that will never go
upstream.)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists