In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote: > > That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing. > > Did I misunderstand? > > I believe that there are people who argue that even the > standalone scheduler code must be licensed under the GPL. If the scheduler was an independent work that someone found, and merged into the Linux kernel, I agree. But if you write the new scheduler for the purpose of merging it into the Linux kernel, then the scheduler doesn't really have a license of its own. You've simply created a derivative of the Linux kernel, and you're bound by its license, which is GPL. -- 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
