[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
From: |
Barry Margolin |
Subject: |
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH? |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:48:08 -0400 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <KlhAk.498$686.288@fe101.usenetserver.com>,
Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > A new version of Linux with a different scheduler serves the same
> > purpose: they're both operating system kernels.
>
> But the new scheduler is not a transformed version of any other code.
> Both are required for a work to be derivative.
It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux kernel
that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel. I.e.
Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB => derivative of Linux.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
- GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/16
- Message not available
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?,
Barry Margolin <=
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Ben Pfaff, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, John Hasler, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21