spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules
Ugh. Seems I misunderstood; I didn't note the reference to binary modules. ----- Original Message -----
From: "David McIlwraith" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules
Quoted 1 line
How should it? The compiler (specifically, the C preprocessor) includes
the
Quoted 30 lines
code, thus it is not the AUTHOR violating the GPL.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rik van Riel" <[email protected]>
To: "Jeff Garzik" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modulesQuoted 4 lines · Jeff Garzik
Quoted 3 lines
So, since spinlocks and semaphores are (a) inline and #included into your code, and (b) required for just about sane interoperation with
Linux...
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 5 lines
does this mean that all binary-only modules that #include kernel code such as spinlocks are violating the GPL?
But who knows if #include'd code constitutes a derived work :(
Only if the #included snippets of code are large enough to be protected by copyright, which might be true of the stuff in
mm_inline.hand of some of the semaphore code, but probably isn't true of the spinlock code.Even if the code #included is large enough to be protected by copyright I don't know if the code including it would be considered a derived work. Many questions remaining...
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 7 lines
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <ahref=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
Quoted 3 lines
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
in
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/