[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 13:22:53 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)

Ciaran O'Riordan <> writes:
> 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.

These examples are at each end of a spectrum of "independent" works.  In
between are grey areas, and all decisions will depend on which judge you get
in which country.

The way to have legal certainty is to simply GPL your contribution too.

...but if someone wants to benefit from free software without contributing,
then the legal mess created by modern copyright law is there own problem.

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]