Barry Margolin wrote:
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.
See? You're one of those people I was talking about. A work is derivative only if it's a transformation of an existing work sufficient to be considered a significant act of authorship. Someone who writes a scheduler, even for the sole purpose of merging it into Linux, does not have to license the code for the scheduler itself under GPL2. That scheduler is not a derivative of the Linux kernel because it is not a transformation of the kernel representing a significant act of authorship. It is not a combined work because it does not contain within itself copies of other works. It is only when a kernel binary is built containing the new scheduler and the rest of Linux that the new scheduler must be licensed under the GPL if the kernel is to be distributed at all. If the scheduler could be distributed as a standalone module which Linux dynamically loaded then it need never be distributed under the GPL. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
