[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 15:15:00 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
> No, it would not. By statute, in the U.S., a derivative work is a
That's not about software, and that's only one jurisdiction.
> Programs written to interoperate with other programs are not derivative
> works of those programs.
True, but we're not talking about that. The example you're replying to was
a scheduler which is an intimate part of a kernel, definitely not a separate
program that interacts with the kernel.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/
Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org
Recent blog entries:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_gnu_osm_gnewsense_bangalore
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/japanese_pdfs_part_2_xetex
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_translation_bsod_orwell_releases
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/fsfe_meeting_tonight_in_brussels_thurs_7th
- GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/16
- Message not available
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?,
Ciaran O'Riordan <=
- Message not available
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/18
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Ben Pfaff, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, John Hasler, 2008/09/21