On Fri, October 23, 2009 11:57, Kyle McDonald wrote: > > Along these lines, it's always struck me that most of the restrictions > of the GPL fall on the entity who distrbutes the 'work' in question. > > I would thinkthat distributing the source to a separate original work > for a module, leaves that responsibility up to who-ever compiles it and > loads it. This means the end-users, as long as they never distribute > what they create, are (mostly?) unaffected by the Kernel's GPL, and if > they do distribute it, the burden is on them.
The problem with this, I think, is that to be used by any significant number of users, the module has to be included in a distribution, not just distributed by itself. (And the different distributions have their own policies on what they will and won't consider including in terms of licenses.) I am also not a lawyer. And I suspect that one important answer to many of these questions is that the issues aren't totally clear and there isn't precedent in case law to guide our understanding much yet. Most of these things haven't been litigated even once yet. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
