[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
From: |
Tim Smith |
Subject: |
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH? |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:14:20 -0700 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <mailman.19406.1221651471.18990.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>,
Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@fsfe.org> wrote:
> 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.
OK, but how about this. Suppose *I* look at the schedular, decide that
it is crap, and so I modify Linux so that the scheduler can be loaded at
run time. To make a scheduler using my system, you write a function in
C named my_scheduler, with an interface that I define. You compile that
to an object file using "gcc -o my_scheduler.c". To load the scheduler,
you run a new command I provide, "load_scheduler", giving it the .o file
containing your scheduler code.
I have designed my interface to be not Linux specific. It represents a
general abstraction of scheduling, and maps Linux scheduling parameters
and settings to more abstract things.
HYPOTHETICAL #1. I also write my new scheduler, and distribute it,
along with my patches that modify the kernel to add the schedule loader.
Is my scheduler a derivative work of the kernel?
HYPOTHETICAL #2. I do not write a scheduler. I limit my contribution
to modifying the kernel to work with schedulers following my
specification. You write a scheduler, following my specification.
Is your scheduler a derivative work of Linux?
HYPOTHETICAL #3. Someone over at Microsoft sees my work, and decides
that loadable, generic schedulers are cool. Microsoft puts this feature
in the next version of Windows. They do not take any code from my
implementation. All they do is use the same interface as mine. They do
such a good job that binary schedular files for Linux work out of the
box with Windows.
Does this change the answer to #1 or #2? Does it matter whether or not
your scheduler or mine was written after Microsoft makes the
aforementioned version of Windows available?
--
--Tim Smith
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, (continued)
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rahul Dhesi, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rahul Dhesi, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rahul Dhesi, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/09/18
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/18
Message not available