Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[David Kastrup]

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