[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH? |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:43:14 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> In article <FnEBk.85$GR.27@fe113.usenetserver.com>,
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>> > That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing.
>> > Did I misunderstand?
>>
>> I believe that there are people who argue that even the
>> standalone scheduler code must be licensed under the GPL.
>
> If the scheduler was an independent work that someone found, and
> merged into the Linux kernel, I agree.
>
> But if you write the new scheduler for the purpose of merging it into
> the Linux kernel, then the scheduler doesn't really have a license of
> its own. You've simply created a derivative of the Linux kernel, and
> you're bound by its license, which is GPL.
I really think this depends on the case in question. And likely on the
jurisdiction in question. It is more a case of "this is a sufficiently
involved area that you will want to get a legal opinion about your
particular case, and hopefully from your lawyer instead of somebody
else".
"Tread carefully" is not the same as "you'll certainly fall".
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, (continued)
- 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
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/22
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/22
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/18
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, David Kastrup, 2008/09/19
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, JEDIDIAH, 2008/09/17