Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
I really think this depends on the case in question. And likely on the jurisdiction in question. It is more a case of "this is a sufficiently involved area that you will want to get a legal opinion about your particular case, and hopefully from your lawyer instead of somebody else". "Tread carefully" is not the same as "you'll certainly fall". -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
