From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262033AbTLSIDP (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:03:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262041AbTLSIDP (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:03:15 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:56845 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262033AbTLSIDO (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:03:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:56:02 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Randy Zagar cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: <1071738720.25032.496.camel@otter.zagar.linux-dude.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18 Dec 2003, Randy Zagar wrote: > For a header file, does anything truly worthy of copyright actually > survive the compilation process? > > If the answer is no, then a binary module cannot be a derivative work. > If the answer is yes, then it is. > > The only way we're ever going to get a definitive answer is when this > actually goes to court. I would say you have a strong grasp of the obvious, and don't let go of it. :-) You are way ahead of most here. Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group