Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965025AbXBVA06 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:26:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965045AbXBVA06 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:26:58 -0500 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.240]:41593 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965025AbXBVA04 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:26:56 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Tw1UYpNi1Uy7qK7RDWgkn94Q1+AgtDqjtx5eE1eRgBLcXhkngzfQNpALRGme8MoFhCQGqKlOaM4pMiLFB72KRDPkyVOD+y8tAcSvNhQYZRlYzlCCT8OnpwTW8ytytxXvxHsacjwx1CVt6BmNfFE0w+7J6MZYvzSauqEUlYP1Utk= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:26:55 -0800 From: "Michael K. Edwards" To: "Nuno Silva" Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Cc: davids@webmaster.com, "v j" , trent.waddington@gmail.com, "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" , "Neil Brown" In-Reply-To: <45DCD61B.7000804@vgertech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3d57814d0702191458l1021caeyaefd7775398c5f2a@mail.gmail.com> <45DCD61B.7000804@vgertech.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1581 Lines: 35 On 2/21/07, Nuno Silva wrote: > I can see that your argument is all about the defenition of a > "derivative work". Far from it. Try reading to the end. > We all know that #include is mostly non copyrightable, so I > mostly agree that some - very very simple - modules may not need to > include the source when distributing the resulting module.ko. (need = > from a legal standpoint... The intended spirit of the GPL is another story) The "intended spirit of the GPL" is very different from what you think it is, as $674 million of Red Hat stock can testify. It is also utterly irrelevant except when the circumstances surrounding someone's acceptance of the GPL indicate that the two parties negotiated more or less directly before settling on its terms. > In this context what do you think about porting Linux to another arch? > Does the people porting the OS needs to distribute the source with the > [compiled] kernel? Of course. They're distributing a derivative work of the kernel, or perhaps even (for legal purposes) distributing Linus's work of authorship with trivial editorial changes that do not create a new copyrightable work. They need license to do so, and the only license on offer is GPL v2, which conditions the license on distribution of source code. Cheers, - Michael - 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/