[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:43:14 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

Barry Margolin <> writes:

> 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.

I really think this depends on the case in question.  And likely on the
jurisdiction in question.  It is more a case of "this is a sufficiently
involved area that you will want to get a legal opinion about your
particular case, and hopefully from your lawyer instead of somebody

"Tread carefully" is not the same as "you'll certainly fall".

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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