On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:55 David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:29 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > Agreed. However, AFAICT, TiVO meets the provisions of the GPLv2 - they > > make the source of the GPL'd part of their system available. (And I'm not > > going to get into arguments over whether kernel modules are "derivative > > works" or not, since those invariably end up with "They aren't, even > > though we think they should be") > > Who cares about whether the module is a derivative work? That's only > relevant when you distribute the module as a separate work. When you > ship a combined work including both the kernel and the module in > question, it's a _whole_ lot easier to interpret the GPL.
Agreed. I said I wasn't going to argue about it because there *ARE* distinctions that the law makes and the GPL ignores. You can't have it both ways. If the module is distributed *with* the kernel *SOURCE* then it doesn't matter if it's a derivative work or not, because it becomes covered by the kernels license. If it's distributed with the kernel *binaries* then it is covered by its own license. In that case the only reason you'd have a right to the source is if the module is considered a "derivative work". DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - 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/
