On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:15:57 +0200, Siegbert Baude wrote: >The purpose of the GPL is to get modified code back, which is the real >interpretation of "derived work".
It doesn't have to be modified, simple use of GPLed code is enough. If the glibc where under GPL instead of LGPL, *every* program linked against it would have to be open sourced. But vendors don't even follow the LGPL, or have you seen any vendor of a closed source program/library offer the object files for relinking with a newer version of glibc? >Non-derived in a sensible manner means that the biggest part of the >work was done without using anything of GPLed code, which for me is >clearly the case for graphics card drivers. You can't really tell without actually seeing the code! >Dispute my arguments from above please, but not with technical wishes >based on support reasons or somebody's expressed opinions besides >the license iteself, but from a legal point of view, because that is all >Novell should care about. Neither of us is a lawyer, ain't it so? So who of us can tell what is and what isn't a violation of the license. There are IP lawyers that say that the use of kernel interfaces indeed constituates a derived work, at least under US law. And as long as there are possibly viable legal claims that can't be ignored easily, a US company like Novell will try to avoid the whole matter as much as possible. Philipp --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
