Re: Input on the Non-GPL Modules

[Borrelli, Michael J]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 05:08:13PM +0000, Tony Hoyle wrote: 
> This is still a GPL violation, as the small module couldn't then be 
> linked with the proprietary module. Most companies aren't prepared to 
> get into the legally murky ground that that sort of thing entails.

Where, in the conceptual layers of the kernel, does a peice of code cease to
be a derived work which must also be GPL'ed and become a "normal use" of the
kernel as is allowed by Linus's clause:

"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of
the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."

Cheers,
Mike