Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Chris Friesen]

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> But also note how it's only the BINARY MODULE that is a derived work. Your
> source code is _not_ necessarily a derived work, and if you compile it for
> another operating system, I'd clearly not complain.
>
> This is the "stand-alone short story" vs "extra chapter without meaning
> outside the book" argument. See? One is a work in its own right, the other
> isn't.

We currently have a situation where an external company supplies us with 
a device driver containing a binary blob that was explicitly written as 
OS-agnostic, and a shim that is gpl'd (at least the linux shim is) to 
get the appropriate os-specific services.  I guess this would fall under 
the "not made just for linux" category in which you've placed the Nvidia 
driver?

Carrying on your analogy, this could be a generic love scene, with 
blanks in which to insert the character's names and location.

Chris


--
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/