Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <48D50828.55835D5@web.de>,
 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Ben Pfaff wrote:
> [...]
> > Linux is not designed to support pluggable schedulers, and in
> > fact Linus has expressly said that he does not want Linux to
> > easily support dropping in alternate schedulers.  Thus,
> > implementing a new scheduler in Linux is fairly likely to require
> > significant modifications to Linux outside the new scheduler
> > itself.
> 
> "Significant modifications to Linux outside the new scheduler itself"
> may well constitute a derivative work. But that don't change the status
> of the new scheduler itself being entirely original and not a derivative
> work. Grok it now?

I don't think anyone was saying that the new scheduler is a derivative.  
It's the new Linux that includes the new scheduler that's a derivative 
of the old 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 ***