From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263890AbTLEGny (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 01:43:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263891AbTLEGny (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 01:43:54 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:56478 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263890AbTLEGnw (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 01:43:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:43:42 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: David Schwartz cc: andersen@codepoet.org, Paul Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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 Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David Schwartz wrote: > > Yes, but they will cite the prohibition against *creating* derived > works. So? The same prohibition exists with the GPL. You are not allowed to create and distribute a derived work unless it is GPL'd. I don't see what you are arguing against. It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. You can then try to prove (through development history etc) that there would be major reasons why it's not really derived. But your argument seems to be that _nothing_ is derived, which is clearly totally false, as you yourself admit when you replace "kernel" with "Harry Potter". Linus