[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020802090741k6fe3324cu99d70f13d9fd54ec@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:41:00 +0200
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Christer Weinigel" <christer@...nigel.se>
Cc: "Hans-Jürgen Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>,
"David Newall" <davidn@...idnewall.com>,
"Marcel Holtmann" <marcel@...tmann.org>,
"Diego Zuccato" <diego@...llo.alma.unibo.it>,
"Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only
On Feb 9, 2008 5:13 PM, Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se> 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@...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