Re: linux gpl question
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
>> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
>> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
>A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases.
>Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it;
>lacking direct permission (rather painful for the kernel), you have to
>distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it.
Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is
entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com