From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:20:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:20:46 -0400 Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:7280 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:20:36 -0400 Subject: Re: GPL Question To: djweis@sjdjweis.com (David Weis) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:21:27 +0100 (BST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "David Weis" at Oct 27, 2000 11:31:52 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Jason Wohlgemuth wrote: > > > Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have > > increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that > > modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module > > be released under the GPL? > > It would probably follow GPL, but it's pretty slimy. I won't buy it. It depends primarily if the module depends on the code which is GPL. Its all a rather unclear area. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/