[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 12:37:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
> It is interesting to note that compiling the source code of standard
> program packages of independently authored c code (and assembler) like
> the Linux kernel does not create a derivative work.
Correct, or more precisely, does not *necessarily* create a derivative work.
Whether X is a derivative of Y is determined at time of writing, not at time
of linking or compiling.
> If I compile my extra, independently authored c code into the Linux
> source tree I create a new collective work not a new derivative work.
If by "independently authored" you mean that you didn't write it to work
with Linux, then your work might indeed not be a derivative work.
For example, if you sang a song, recorded it, and put it into the Linux
kernel source as your start-up sound, then that wouldn't automatically be
GPL'd, AFAICT. That would be a simple amalgamation, even if the final
output might all be in the one file.
But if you looked at Linux, decided the scheduler was crap, and then wrote a
completely new scheduler for Linux, then that would be a derivative work,
AFAICT. Whether you link or compile it all together, or whether you output
one file or multiple, wouldn't be a deciding factor, AFAIK.
--
CiarĂ¡n 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
- 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