In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote: > > In my opinion, the scheduler is an integral part of Linux > > If I write a piece of code intended to be a Linux scheduler, > I may distribute that code any way I choose. I do not have > to license it under the terms of Linux's license. That is > true even though the scheduler is of no use except as part > of a Linux kernel, because copyright doesn't care whether a > program works, or is good for anything. I agree, although I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. > > If I make a combined work, say by producing a Linux kernel > containing my scheduler, only then does the combined work > fall under the GPL, and only then would I have to distribute > my code under the GPL. That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing. Did I misunderstand? -- 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 [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
