Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Barry Margolin]

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 ***