Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267537AbSKTC4h>; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:56:37 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267612AbSKTC4h>; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:56:37 -0500
Received: from CPE-144-132-5-79.vic.bigpond.net.au ([144.132.5.79]:56782 "EHLO
	blacksun.dynastynet.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267537AbSKTC4f>; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:56:35 -0500
Message-ID: <027e01c29041$5e103670$41368490@archaic>
From: "David McIlwraith" <quack@bigpond.net.au>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:03:08 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3663.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3663.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2297
Lines: 62

Ugh. Seems I misunderstood; I didn't note the reference to binary modules.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David McIlwraith" <quack@bigpond.net.au>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules


> How should it? The compiler (specifically, the C preprocessor) includes
the
> code, thus it is not the AUTHOR violating the GPL.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rik van Riel" <riel@conectiva.com.br>
> To: "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@pobox.com>
> Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:52 PM
> Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules
>
>
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > So, since spinlocks and semaphores are (a) inline and #included into
> > > your code, and (b) required for just about sane interoperation with
> Linux...
> > >
> > > does this mean that all binary-only modules that #include kernel code
> > > such as spinlocks are violating the GPL?
> >
> > > But who knows if #include'd code constitutes a derived work :(
> >
> > Only if the #included snippets of code are large enough to be
> > protected by copyright, which might be true of the stuff in
> > mm_inline.h and of some of the semaphore code, but probably
> > isn't true of the spinlock code.
> >
> > Even if the code #included is large enough to be protected by
> > copyright I don't know if the code including it would be considered
> > a derived work. Many questions remaining...
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Rik
> > --
> > Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
> > http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
> > Current spamtrap:  <a
> href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/