Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?

[Alan Cox]

>     and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>     themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>     sections when you distribute them as separate works. 
> 
> For example, suppose I ship you a tarball that has the source & binaries
> for both a GPLed program and a non GPLed helper program in it - does the
> non GPLed program become GPLed?  I tend to doubt it and so do the lawyers.

The counter example is the Objective C compiler. There the helper was not usable
without the GPL compiler so was not a 'seperate work'

> Note that I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion on this is just that,
> my opinion.  I have spent a fair amount of time and money trying to

Ditto but I spent favours not $15K chunks 8)

> you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine.
> If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to
> you that there really is no good reason not to just GPL it from the start.

Smart advice.