Re: GPLv2 or not GPLv2? (no license bashing)

[Jesse Pollard]

On Tuesday 09 March 2004 11:26, Mĺns Rullgĺrd wrote:
> Jesse Pollard <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Tuesday 09 March 2004 03:04, Mĺns Rullgĺrd wrote:
> >> vda <vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> > Well, Linux kernel is GPLed. If one adds his/hers code to the kernel
> >> > (s)he is automatically agrees to the terms of GPL.
> >> >
> >> > Because "adds code" is actually incorrect here.  "modifies existing
> >> > GPLed code" is more accurate.
> >>
> >> Suppose I write a new kernel module, without touching any existing
> >> code, and this module gets included in the kernel tree.  Have I added
> >> code?  Yes.  Have I modified GPLed code?  I think not.
> >
> > But you did incorporate GPL interfaces, likely some inline functions...
>
> Suppose for the sake of argument that I didn't.  Besides, simply
> including header files doesn't count.

Then your binary module is good to go... until the next patch or update.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/