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

Arjan van de Ven (arjanv@redhat.com)
21 Nov 2002 11:36:45 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo: "[PATCH] drivers/net: fix up header cleanups: remove unneeded sched.h include"
Previous message: Dave Jones: "Re: Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer"
Next in thread: Andre Hedrick: "Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules"
Reply: Andre Hedrick: "Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules"

On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 03:49, David McIlwraith wrote:
> How should it? The compiler (specifically, the C preprocessor) includes the
> code, thus it is not the AUTHOR violating the GPL.

It is if the AUTHOR then decides to distribute the resulting binary
which would contain a mix of GPL and non GPL work..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo: "[PATCH] drivers/net: fix up header cleanups: remove unneeded sched.h include"
Previous message: Dave Jones: "Re: Compiling x86 with and without frame pointer"
Next in thread: Andre Hedrick: "Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules"
Reply: Andre Hedrick: "Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules"