On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 12:06:14PM -0400, Crane, Matthew wrote:
> I wasn't sure how to describe what the people and groups with the
> mandate to defend open source software. There are people and groups
> with such a mandate.
There is no such thing as "mandate". If you are a copyright owner,
and you elect to be a hard*ss about enforcing the GPL, you can choose
to do so. If you are not a copyright owner, all you can do is
pontificate with FAQ's about GPL....
> I'm asking if in a legal sense the grayness is affected by the
> constraints of the hw the kernel is being run on, and some attempt to
> quantify how the grayness is affected. Of course it is not black and
> white and ultimately up to a judge.
At the end of the day it all boils down to what is a derived work. If
an object file which is designed to link into a kernel is a derived
work, then the GPL claims that it will infect across to that derived
work. Whether or not it this is a case is a matter of much debate,
and as far as I know, no court has ever ruled on point regarding the
question of object files, dynamical linking, and whether or not that
would be a derived work or not. It seems likely that the answer may
vary from one legal jurisdiction to another. Hence, the only answer
that we can give which is useful is, "Take this off of LKML, and go
ask a lawyer."
Best regards,
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
