--On Tuesday, July 18, 2006 05:32:37 PM +0200 Harald Barth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
The argument is that binary kernel modules are derived works of linux (at
the very least, because there are all these inline functions in headers
which appear in the object code) and therefore all their components must be
GPLd.
Linus has specifically said the opposite, naming OpenAFS in particular,
many times, so at least on the merits of that objection he's going to
lose. Provided that Linus is consistent, and I would hope Linux would be.
Linus has also said that individual contributors of code are allowed to
disagree with him wrt their new contributions. this is why we have
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
In the case of the RCU (read-copy-update) interface in particular, IBM has
a patent on this technology, and has only granted royalty-free licenses to
GPL applications.
<http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110522490820482&w=2> (I
cannot find a "real" reference for this...)
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
