Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:58:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:58:26 -0500 Received: from xsmtp.ethz.ch ([129.132.97.6]:4430 "EHLO xsmtp.ethz.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:58:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3DDCA1DB.6020807@debian.org> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:05:31 +0100 From: Giacomo Catenazzi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, it-ch, it, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Hedrick CC: Alan Cox , Ross Vandegrift , Rik van Riel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2002 09:05:32.0198 (UTC) FILETIME=[25248C60:01C2913D] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 948 Lines: 39 Andre Hedrick wrote: > On 20 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > >On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 18:57, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > >>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? > > > >No > > > Excellent! > > Now if Linus would just make to position clear. Check this Linus' post: recent and with clear statment: http://lwn.net/Articles/13066/ [Full discussion in http://lwn.net/Articles/13398/, support LWN!] ciao giacomo - 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/