From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264602AbTLESM3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:12:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264855AbTLESM3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:12:29 -0500 Received: from slider.rack66.net ([212.3.252.135]:20126 "EHLO slider.rack66.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264602AbTLESMX (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:12:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:12:22 +0100 From: Filip Van Raemdonck To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Message-ID: <20031205181222.GA24882@debian> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031205140304.GF17870@michonline.com> <001401c3bb56$3b2fdd40$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001401c3bb56$3b2fdd40$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:35:52AM -0800, Hua Zhong wrote: > > So far, I don't see any reason why a module that uses an > > inline function provided via a kernel header could be distributed in > > binary > > format without being a "derived work" and thus bound by the GPL. > > Yeah, the same reason that XFS, NUMA, etc are derived works from Unix > since they must include Unix header files. Nope, they #include Linux header files - at least in their Linux version. Even if one version does #include Unix headers, that does not mean copyright to the rest of the code automatically belongs to the Unix copyright holder. 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. Regards, Filip -- We have joy, we have fun, we have Linux on our Sun.