In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote: > > It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux kernel > > that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel. I.e. > > > > Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB => derivative of Linux. > > But the new scheduler itself is not entangled with the copyright > of Linux. And the combined work of Linux + new scheduler is a > derivative of Linux only if the changes to use the new scheduler > involved enough modifications to Linux to consider them a significant > work of authorship. In my opinion, the scheduler is an integral part of Linux, just as Chapter 1 is an integral part of a Harry Potter book. An operating system is NOT an anthology. Application programs, on the other hand, are independent. The collection of all the applications included in a Linux distribution would be a collective work, analogous to an anthology. -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
