Subject: RE: Possible GPL infringement in Broadcom-based routers
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: davids@webmaster.com
Cc: "Jp@Enix. Org" <jp@enix.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEIEPJAA.davids@webmaster.com>
References: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEIEPJAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:05:06 +0000
Message-Id: <1099847106.4938.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1407
Lines: 30

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 12:09 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> 	This is exactly the argument I hoped would *not* arise on the LKML. I'll
> try not to reply further unelss someone posts something fundmanetally new.
> 
> > Anyone copying and distributing the Linux kernel must comply with the
> > copyright licence which _conditionally_ grants them permission to do so.
> 
> 	*sigh* We're not talking about anyone copying or distributing *the* Linux
> kernel. We're talking about someone copying or distributing another work
> that is derivative of the Linux kernel (which is also *a* Linux kernel, just
> not *the* Linux kernel). This is true whether they distribute the module
> separately or linked with the Linux kernel. In either case, they are not
> distributing the actual work placed under the GPL but a distinct, yet
> derivative, work.

Ah, OK. So as long as they change one line of code in the kernel, it's a
derivative work and they're no longer required to comply with the GPL?
They don't even need to use binary-only modules; they can put their own
proprietary code into their kernel, and distribute it how they like?

An interesting opinion.

-- 
dwmw2

-
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/