The PR contains the implementation of inline functions. Are those handled in the same way as symbols definitions?
Best regards, Petro ср, 13 квіт. 2022 р. о 16:10 Alan Carvalho de Assis <acas...@gmail.com> пише: > Simple header files, for example only symbols definitions are not > considered derivative work, more info: > > > https://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/03/20/1529238/rms-on-header-files-and-derivative-works > > On 4/13/22, Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> We are having a PRhttps://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/5755 > >> that > >> is intended to update "include/nuttx/wireless/ieee80211/ieee80211.h" > >> header > >> in NuttX code tree. > >> > >> the changes are the sync with > >> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/include/linux/ieee80211.h > >> verison that is available under: "/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > >> GPL-2.0-only > >> */". > >> Basically the changes are a reformatted code from the original Linux > >> header > >> file. > >> > >> I have the question if we are allowed to do it from a legal perspective? > > > > Probably not. Any code that derives from GPL is also GPL. Reformatting > > does not effect that; the code still derives from GPL. > > > > But there are caveats for Linux header files. I am not an attorney, so > > I don't want claim too much knowledge on this. But use of header files > > that define operating system interfaces are considered "normal use" the > > SPDX referenced in the Linux COPYING file. That is > > https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-syscall-note.html : > > > > /NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel > > services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal > > use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived > > work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free > > Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the > > Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it./ > > > > // > > > > /Linus Torvalds/ > > >
