Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S262384AbSKTTC7>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:02:59 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262394AbSKTTC7>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:02:59 -0500
Received: from crack.them.org ([65.125.64.184]:42406 "EHLO crack.them.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S262384AbSKTTC5>;
	Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:02:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:09:36 -0500
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
To: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules
Message-ID: <20021120190936.GA11446@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1037802074.3267.24.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10211201055310.3892-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10211201055310.3892-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1526
Lines: 39

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:57:58AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 04:26, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:59:26AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > You can copyright songs, but not individual musical notes.
> > > > 
> > > > Likewise, snippets of code aren't copyrightable if they're below
> > > > a certain "triviality size".
> > > 
> > > I don't pretend to be current on all the issues involved, but I've
> > > always been under the impression that Linus has insisted that
> > > binary-only drivers aren't derived works, with respect to the GPL.
> > 
> > Linus has said much the reverse if you look back. Being a module doesnt
> > make it not a derivative work. In some ways thats not even directly
> > relevant
> 
> The double negative unwrapped:
> 
> "Being a module doesnt make it not a derivative work."
> 
> 'Being a module does (not) make it not a derivative work.'
> 'Being a module does (not) make it (not) a derivative work.'
> 
> 'Being a module does make it a derivative work.'
> 
> Is this the intent of the statement?

That's faulty grammar and faulty logic.  "A" does not require "not B".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
-
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/