> I would assume Nvidia's view is based on US caselaw on what
> constitutes a 'derived work'. The boundaries of copyright are not
> set by the GPL authors
indeed, and apparently its not at all a black-and-white area. to that
end, i'll point to the following thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05725.html
and the paper it links to, "derived software defined" (no idea whether
its accurate):
http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf
and as IANAL, i'll shut up now.
regards,
-- Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra paulj@alphyra.ie Warning: /never/ send email to spam@dishone.st or trap@dishone.st- 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/