> On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 10:17, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Yeah, that's precisely the problem here: the binary-only module is
> > distributed with included spinlock code, which *is* GPL.
> That doesnt neccessarily make it a derived work. Suppose I publish a
> book including a lawyer who says "Your honour I ...". That doesn't make
> it a derivative of some previous work I read that used the same phrase.
> Equally if I paraphase the entire court scene but use no identical words
> it may be a derived work.
> Stop thinking about this as a mathematical question. It isnt about the
> union of sets of instructions.
This can be made clean if all the inlined C in the headers are pushed
back to an actual .c file and the make it function to call as an extern.
So the solution is to make a patch and publish that patch which cleans the
out the C code in question and move the associacted GPL license to the new
.c files. This is proper and legal as structs are just the glue or api.
So if I publish this patch where it can be freely available for usage by
all, I comply with GPL. This also removes any of the "extremists" points
of the smallest amount of GPL code invoked by the compiler can not touch
Any arguments why this will not work?
LAD Storage Consulting Group
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/