[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

From: Ciaran O'Riordan
Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:37:37 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)

Rjack <> writes:
> It is interesting to note that compiling the source code of standard
> program packages of independently authored c code (and assembler) like
> the Linux kernel does not create a derivative work.

Correct, or more precisely, does not *necessarily* create a derivative work.

Whether X is a derivative of Y is determined at time of writing, not at time
of linking or compiling.

> If I compile my extra, independently authored c code into the Linux
> source tree I create a new collective work not a new derivative work.

If by "independently authored" you mean that you didn't write it to work
with Linux, then your work might indeed not be a derivative work.

For example, if you sang a song, recorded it, and put it into the Linux
kernel source as your start-up sound, then that wouldn't automatically be
GPL'd, AFAICT.  That would be a simple amalgamation, even if the final
output might all be in the one file.

But if you looked at Linux, decided the scheduler was crap, and then wrote a
completely new scheduler for Linux, then that would be a derivative work,
AFAICT.  Whether you link or compile it all together, or whether you output
one file or multiple, wouldn't be a deciding factor, AFAIK.

CiarĂ¡n O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19,

Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship:

Recent blog entries:

reply via email to

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