Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

'Filip Van Raemdonck'
2003-12-05T19:56:15Z

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:37:51AM -0800, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > Nope, they #include Linux header files - at least in their
> > Linux version.
>
> So what? By the same argument they are derived work of Linux too.
>
> This is exactly the flaw of "once you include my code, you are derived
> work of mine".

I'll rephrase what I wrote and what people have been saying all the time:

"Once you build a binary module, it contains our (inlined) code and thus
the binary module is a derived work."

> > And we're not even talking about source code; we're talking about
> > _binary modules_. Which do include object code which comes from GPLed
> > (inline) code; and are thus derived works.
>
> I disagree.
>
> It all depends on how significant the inlined code is compared to the
> whole work of the module. For inline functions, I don't see why using
> them would be a significant part - by definition "inline" means
> "small/trivial", otherwise you would not have inlined them.
>
> Otherwise, since SCO found a few lines of code copied from Unix in Linux
> source, are we saying the whole million lines of code is derived from
> Unix?

We have yet to see if they actually found code.

And no; we're not saying all code is a derived work. We're saying that if
there is a few lines of copied code, then the compiled kernel which
contains object code coming from these lines is a derived work. If.

Regards,

Filip

--
<rcw> debian comes in behind redhat, slackware, suse, and mandrake when
searching google for 'linux distribution'
<asuffield> try "best linux distribution"