On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 22:20 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > That boundary is indeed fuzzy, because life is fuzzy too and the > possibilities are virtually unlimited. But one thing is pretty sure: as > long as some component is merely put alongside of a larger body of work, > even if that component has no life of its own without _some_ larger body > of work, that component is not necessarily part of a collective work and > does not necessarily fall under the GPL.
Not _necessarily_ a collective work. But not necessarily _not_ a collective work either. > For driver blobs that are shared between Windows and Linux it would be > hard to argue that they are derived from the Linux kernel. You're back to the 'derived work' thing again, which wasn't relevant. > Merely linking to some larger body of work does not necessarily mean > that the two become a collective work. No matter how much the FSF is > trying to muddy the waters with the LGPL/GPL. I think it's quite clear that the intent of the GPL _is_ to 'muddy the waters', as you put it, and to indicate that bundling stuff together _should_ put the non-derived parts under the GPL too; at least in some circumstances. But still, nothing's true until it's ruled by a court. -- dwmw2 - 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/
