Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <GjmBk.105$Aw3.90@fe109.usenetserver.com>,
 Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In my opinion, the scheduler is an integral part of Linux
> 
> If I write a piece of code intended to be a Linux scheduler,
> I may distribute that code any way I choose. I do not have
> to license it under the terms of Linux's license. That is
> true even though the scheduler is of no use except as part
> of a Linux kernel, because copyright doesn't care whether a
> program works, or is good for anything.

I agree, although I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

> 
> If I make a combined work, say by producing a Linux kernel
> containing my scheduler, only then does the combined work
> fall under the GPL, and only then would I have to distribute
> my code under the GPL.

That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing.  Did I 
misunderstand?

-- 
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 ***