Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Hyman Rosen]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> 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.

See? You're one of those people I was talking about.

A work is derivative only if it's a transformation of an
existing work sufficient to be considered a significant
act of authorship. Someone who writes a scheduler, even
for the sole purpose of merging it into Linux, does not
have to license the code for the scheduler itself under
GPL2. That scheduler is not a derivative of the Linux
kernel because it is not a transformation of the kernel
representing a significant act of authorship. It is not
a combined work because it does not contain within itself
copies of other works. It is only when a kernel binary is
built containing the new scheduler and the rest of Linux
that the new scheduler must be licensed under the GPL if
the kernel is to be distributed at all. If the scheduler
could be distributed as a standalone module which Linux
dynamically loaded then it need never be distributed under
the GPL.