[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why would it need to be? As long as you don't distribute it as
part of the Linux kernel or with a Linux kernel, you should be
perfectly fine.
(It is the end user who gets to assemble the bits; he cannot distribute
the results any further but an enduser is not bound by any of the
GPL terms which specifically restrict the way in you can copy or
redistribute)
Casper
_______________________________________________
It doesn't work that way. If the code can be considered to be part of a
larger whole, then it gets covered by the GPL. Doesn't matter if you
distribute the code section separately. The sticky part is what
constitutes a "whole" - are kernel modules considered part of the Linux
kernel as a whole? That's the legal grey area; the general Linux
community seems to be on the side of "yes". It's a similar problem as
to linking against a GPL'd library. There isn't a good definition (legal
or otherwise) as to what constitutes a separate program, and what is an
extention to an existing program.
I agree that looking at Veritas' solution is a real good idea. At least,
if ZFS was implemented the same way, there would be TWO companies making
the argument that doing it that way is not violating the GPL.
--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop: usca22-123
Phone: x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
