From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932408AbWBFWi4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:38:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932409AbWBFWi4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:38:56 -0500 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.88]:57311 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932408AbWBFWiz (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:38:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <50968728-E8BA-46BB-83D9-866ADEE546DA@mac.com> Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:38:51 -0500 To: davids@webmaster.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Feb 06, 2006, at 16:07, David Schwartz wrote: >> The LGPL deals with only derivative works. The GPL also deals with >> mere *linking*. If glibc were GPL'd, it would be illegal to make >> an OS based on it with a single C program incompatible with the GPL. > > The only way the GPL can control work Y because it affects work Z > is because Y is a derivative work of work Z. If it's not, then the > works are legally unrelated, and no matter what the GPL says, it > can't affect work Y. To say this more simplistically, the LGPL essentially says "Even if dynamic linking constitutes making a derivative work, we allow you to dynamically link, so long as the rules are followed for the LGPL code to which you link". The GPL essentially says "If dynamic linking is making a derivative work, then these rules apply to the whole derivative work and all of its constituent parts". Whether or not an NVidia binary module is a derivative work is left up to the courts to decide. It _may_ be legal (don't trust me, consult your lawyer) to have a very simple cross-platform interface and some BSD-licensed glue. On the other hand, if your interface derives from or exposes any kind of kernel-internals, then it is most certainly a derivative work (because you can't argue that the binary interface was written to be independent of Linux, and it therefore falls under the GPL. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things, because that would also stop them from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn