Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 07:18:12AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Trust me, a federal judge couldn't care less about some very esoteric
> technical detail. I don't know who brought up inline functions, but they
> aren't what would force the GPL.

They've certainly been brought up here over and over as an example of
included work that forces the GPL.

> What has meaning for "derived work" is whether it stands on its own or
> not, and how tightly integrated it is. If something works with just one
> particular version of the kernel - or depends on things like whether the
> kernel was compiled with certain options etc - then it pretty clearly is
> very tightly integrated.

So what?  Plugins have a nasty tendency to have to be updated when the
main program is updated.  That doesn't mean that the Netscape license
is allowed to control the flash plugin license.  I think (and very
much hope) that your idea of a derived work is flawed.  Otherwise you
are helping make case law that is going to screw a lot people of over.
If you think Microsoft won't use your expanded definition of what is a
derived work, think again.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm