gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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 <address@hidden> writes:

> In article <address@hidden>,
>  Hyman Rosen <address@hidden> 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


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]