Cisco Cisco IPICS Release 2.1 Licensing Information

 

Just imagine: distributing a compiled binary-only kernel module that can

be loaded into the kernel is not like distributing a new book: it's more

like distributing a extra chapter to a book that somebody else wrote, that

uses all the same characters and the plot, but more importantly it

literally can only be read _together_ with the original work. It doesn't

stand alone.

 

In short, your honour, this extra chapter without any meaning on its own

is a derived work of the book.

 

In contrast, maybe you can re-write your code and distribute it as a

short-story, which can be run on its own, and maybe the author has been

influenced by another book, but the short-story could be bound AS IS, and

a recipient would find it useful even without that other book. In that

case, the short story is not a derived work - it's only inspired.

 

Notice? This is actually _exactly_ what I've been arguing all along,

except I've been arguing with a technical audience, so I've been using

technical examples and terminology. But my argument is that just the fact

that somebody compiled the code for Linux into a binary module that is

useless without a particular version of the kernel DOES MAKE IT A DERIVED

WORK.

 

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.

 

Linus

 

 

Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Date:Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:43:42 -0800 (PST)

From:Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

To:David Schwartz

cc:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

 

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

>

> Yes, but they will cite the prohibition against *creating* derived

> works.

 

So?