[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$GR.27@fe113.usenetserver.com>,
Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> 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, barmar@alum.mit.edu
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 ***
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, (continued)
- 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
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?,
Barry Margolin <=
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, David Kastrup, 2008/09/22
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/22
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/18
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, David Kastrup, 2008/09/19
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, JEDIDIAH, 2008/09/17