[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: linux gpl question

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

Reply to: