On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > > Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces > > of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel. > > That makes it a derivative work of the kernel. > > In theory, one could design a patch format that doesn't include any > context data; it wouldn't be very useful or robust, but it could be > done. Would the patch still be considered a DW? The patch is still > representing a DW of the kernel source. At least by applying the patch you make derivative work. IANAL, but by modifying Linux (to make the patch) you agree with the GPL. I'm not sure it's legal to distribute patches which aren't under de GPL. I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that NeXTStep distributed only the object files which should be linked with gcc by the user to make the Objective-C compiler. IIRC that wasn't legal and they GPL'd the source to comply with the GPL. This is only from my vague memory, so there is a change that this isn't totally correct. :) Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpkIB7_nskX3.pgp
Description: PGP signature