Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:39:19 -0800 (PST)
From: David Lang <dlang@digitalinsight.com>
To: "D. Hazelton" <dhazelton@enter.net>
cc: davids@webmaster.com,
       "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPL only modules
In-Reply-To: <200612190135.53832.dhazelton@enter.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0612190835500.18007@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
References: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKKECHAHAC.davids@webmaster.com>
 <200612190135.53832.dhazelton@enter.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1046
Lines: 22

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, D. Hazelton wrote:

> This doesn't negate any problems with people making Blob drivers, because, as
> you pointed out, under the same laws they aren't a derivative work, which
> means that that clause of the license doesn't apply. Now if the GPL contained
> a clause specifically defining what it considered a derivative work things
> would be different.

incorrect, the GPL (or any other license) cannot define what is a derived work, 
the law does that. they could have a clause in them that said that something 
that is a derived work under the law is not considered a derived work by the 
author (implicitly giving unrestricted permission to that something), but you 
cannot define something that the law doesn't consider a derived work to be one 
in the license.

David Lang

-
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/