Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S129591AbQJ0S5U>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:57:20 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S130065AbQJ0S5K>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:57:10 -0400
Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.146]:10224 "EHLO
	brutus.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S129591AbQJ0S4t>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:56:49 -0400
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:56:33 -0200 (BRDT)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
cc: Jason Wohlgemuth <jswkernel@triad.rr.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: GPL Question
In-Reply-To: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKMEJFLIAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010271656100.25174-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, David Schwartz wrote:

> > Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> > increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> > modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module
> > be released under the GPL?
> 
>      If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own
> some rights to every piece of software that uses the Windows
> API.

Read the fine print...

*runs like crazy*

Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
       -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

http://www.conectiva.com/		http://www.surriel.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/