Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423489AbWJZNLz (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:11:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423496AbWJZNLz (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:11:55 -0400 Received: from 216-54-166-5.static.twtelecom.net ([216.54.166.5]:8895 "EHLO mx1.compro.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423489AbWJZNLy (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:11:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4540B414.7040406@compro.net> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:11:48 -0400 From: Mark Hounschell Reply-To: markh@compro.net Organization: Compro Computer Svcs. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060725) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Mouw Cc: Alan Cox , dmarkh@cfl.rr.com, linux-kernel Subject: Re: Another kernel releated GPL ? References: <4540839C.6010302@cfl.rr.com> <1161861128.12781.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45409BFA.8000507@compro.net> <20061026121041.GB12420@harddisk-recovery.com> In-Reply-To: <20061026121041.GB12420@harddisk-recovery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1663 Lines: 41 Erik Mouw wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:28:58AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote: >> Alan Cox wrote: >>> Ask your lawyer. It depends on the legal definition of "derivative >>> work", which isn't something a kernel developer can really answer. >>> >> I'm sure every lawyer will have his own opinion. In the end won't it come down >> to the intent of the kernel developer? Surly the definition of "derivative work" >> has to be, or has been already, defined by someone other than a lawyer or court >> that knows nothing of "kernel development"? > > "Derivative work" is defined by copyright law, not by some random > kernel hackers. You should really consult a lawyer. > > If legal advise is too expensive, then your Most Holy IP apparently > isn't worth that much and you'd rather release it under GPL. > > > Erik > Any Holy IP I might have would be GPL. It's just I know of some that isn't and I can't understand why it isn't. I'm not looking for legal advise. Just opinions. Some code is added directly to the kernel source tree. A user land library is written to access the changes. It is not GPL or LGPL. Simple scenario. No? I thought so at least. With all the complex and detailed (way over my head) discussions of the GPL-V2 vs. V3 that the list has had recently, I don't understand how something so simple as this scenario would require legal advise to know if it were OK or not. Thanks anyway Mark - 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/