Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262201AbTIMVLp (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:11:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262202AbTIMVLo (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:11:44 -0400 Received: from mail1-106.ewetel.de ([212.6.122.106]:25533 "EHLO mail1.ewetel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262201AbTIMVLl (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:11:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:11:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Pascal Schmidt To: Andre Hedrick cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-CheckCompat: OK Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 838 Lines: 23 On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > Prove an original work which uses the proper "unprotectable API" to > operate in the Linux kernel is a "derived work". I never claimed such a thing. Whether an API is unprotectable or not is a question for the lawyers. If people put GPL_ONLY symbol exports in their code, that's their call to make, is it not? It's their code and they're free to say "well, this is my code, and if you use this symbol, I consider your stuff to be a derived work". Once again it's up to the lawyers to decide whether this has legal value or not. -- Ciao, Pascal - 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/