Re: Module Licensing?

From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
To: Timur Tabi <ttabi@interactivesi.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Module Licensing?
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:37:45 -0200 (BRST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0110311535250.2963-100000@imladris.surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3BE034F6.8070201@interactivesi.com>

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Since your program, which happens to consist of one open
> > source part and one proprietary part, is partly a derived
> > work from the kernel source (by using kernel header files
> > and the inline functions in it) your whole work must be
> > distributed under the GPL.
>
> I contest your meaning of the word "work".  The open source portion of
> my module is one "work", and the closed source portion is another
> "work".  I could deliver these two works as separate tarballs, if I
> wanted.

Let me quote you, from 2 emails back in the thread:

 "The fact that the open source portions and the closed source portions
  can't function on their own is irrelevant, IMHO."

The irrelevance here is IYHO ... it may well be judged that
since these two portions of the work need each other in order
to function, the thing really is one work.

You're well into the danger zone here...

regards,

Rik
-- 
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C?  Who cares?  http://thefreeworld.net/

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/