[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 03:01:59 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)

Barry Margolin wrote:
In my opinion, the scheduler is an integral part of Linux

If I write a piece of code intended to be a Linux scheduler,
I may distribute that code any way I choose. I do not have
to license it under the terms of Linux's license. That is
true even though the scheduler is of no use except as part
of a Linux kernel, because copyright doesn't care whether a
program works, or is good for anything.

If I make a combined work, say by producing a Linux kernel
containing my scheduler, only then does the combined work
fall under the GPL, and only then would I have to distribute
my code under the GPL.

I know the FSF would like people to believe that code which
interoperates with other code is bound by the copyright of
the other code, but that simply is not supported by U.S. law.

reply via email to

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