Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:57:58AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 04:26, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:59:26AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > You can copyright songs, but not individual musical notes.
> > > > 
> > > > Likewise, snippets of code aren't copyrightable if they're below
> > > > a certain "triviality size".
> > > 
> > > I don't pretend to be current on all the issues involved, but I've
> > > always been under the impression that Linus has insisted that
> > > binary-only drivers aren't derived works, with respect to the GPL.
> > 
> > Linus has said much the reverse if you look back. Being a module doesnt
> > make it not a derivative work. In some ways thats not even directly
> > relevant
> 
> The double negative unwrapped:
> 
> "Being a module doesnt make it not a derivative work."
> 
> 'Being a module does (not) make it not a derivative work.'
> 'Being a module does (not) make it (not) a derivative work.'
> 
> 'Being a module does make it a derivative work.'
> 
> Is this the intent of the statement?

That's faulty grammar and faulty logic.  "A" does not require "not B".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer