[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

From: Barry Margolin
Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 02:29:16 -0400
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <FnEBk.85$>,
 Hyman Rosen <> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing.
>  > Did I misunderstand?
> I believe that there are people who argue that even the
> standalone scheduler code must be licensed under the GPL.

If the scheduler was an independent work that someone found, and merged 
into the Linux kernel, I agree.

But if you write the new scheduler for the purpose of merging it into 
the Linux kernel, then the scheduler doesn't really have a license of 
its own.  You've simply created a derivative of the Linux kernel, and 
you're bound by its license, which is GPL.

Barry Margolin,
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

reply via email to

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