From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263568AbTLJPdS (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:33:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263598AbTLJPdR (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:33:17 -0500 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:59313 "EHLO work.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263587AbTLJPdD (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:33:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:32:54 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andre Hedrick , Arjan van de Ven , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Message-ID: <20031210153254.GC6896@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Andre Hedrick , Arjan van de Ven , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 07:18:12AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Trust me, a federal judge couldn't care less about some very esoteric > technical detail. I don't know who brought up inline functions, but they > aren't what would force the GPL. They've certainly been brought up here over and over as an example of included work that forces the GPL. > What has meaning for "derived work" is whether it stands on its own or > not, and how tightly integrated it is. If something works with just one > particular version of the kernel - or depends on things like whether the > kernel was compiled with certain options etc - then it pretty clearly is > very tightly integrated. So what? Plugins have a nasty tendency to have to be updated when the main program is updated. That doesn't mean that the Netscape license is allowed to control the flash plugin license. I think (and very much hope) that your idea of a derived work is flawed. Otherwise you are helping make case law that is going to screw a lot people of over. If you think Microsoft won't use your expanded definition of what is a derived work, think again. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm