Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules

[Andre Hedrick]

So it is business as usual, all sabre noise but none drawn.
Everyone is scared of the lawyers and all it would do is feed the sharks
and nobody makes any money but them.

So it is a draw ?

On 20 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 20:41, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Have we decided that #include'ing GPL'd code does, or does not, taint 
> > otherwise "license-clean" code that includes the GPL'd code?
> 
> Ask a lawyer - and the answer mostly is "it depends"
> 
> > we fall to copyright law, and wonder aloud if an obviously-non-derived 
> > work #includes GPL'd code, does it become derived?
> 
> Example 1
> 
> 	I paste your name and address into my document does it become
> 	a derived work
> 
> Example 2
> 
> 	I paste your poem into my document does it become a derived work
> 
> 
> So #include isnt terribly relevant 8)
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group