RE: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined

2003-01-08 Thread Don Jarrell
This, IMO, is one of the messiest parts of most alleged "Open Source" licenses. When one sees a collection of terms from the several contributors in a chain, does that mean the user has a licensee- licensor relationship with each of them ? What about conflicts between those sets of terms ? Is sub

Re: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined

2003-01-08 Thread Ken Arromdee
On 8 Jan 2003, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > But, again, it's not unclear for Linux. Linus has clearly stated that > loadable binary modules are OK for Linux. There is no confusion > there. But Linus doesn't own the copyright of all of the code in Linux. If this is just a personal exemption granted

Re: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined

2003-01-08 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If one was to go through the pain of creating a set of headers from > scratch that happen to behave just like the one is the kernel snapshot > they are referrencing, as a manual to the API. This obviously is > extracting the ideas in : > > ./linux-{sna

Re: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined

2003-01-08 Thread Andre Hedrick
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, David Johnson wrote: > On Tuesday 07 January 2003 10:15 pm, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > New twist: > > > > user_space.c kernel_space.c > > #include#include > > #include #include > > #inc