Re: Another kernel releated GPL ?

[Mark Hounschell <markh@compro.net>]

Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:28:58AM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Ask your lawyer. It depends on the legal definition of "derivative
>>> work", which isn't something a kernel developer can really answer.
>>>
>> I'm sure every lawyer will have his own opinion. In the end won't it come down
>> to the intent of the kernel developer? Surly the definition of "derivative work"
>> has to be, or has been already, defined by someone other than a lawyer or court
>> that knows nothing of "kernel development"?
> 
> "Derivative work" is defined by copyright law, not by some random
> kernel hackers. You should really consult a lawyer.
> 
> If legal advise is too expensive, then your Most Holy IP apparently
> isn't worth that much and you'd rather release it under GPL.
> 
> 
> Erik
> 

Any Holy IP I might have would be GPL. It's just I know of some that isn't and I
can't understand why it isn't. I'm not looking for legal advise. Just opinions.

Some code is added directly to the kernel source tree. A user land library is
written to access the changes. It is not GPL or LGPL. Simple scenario. No? I
thought so at least.

With all the complex and detailed (way over my head) discussions of the GPL-V2
vs. V3 that the list has had recently, I don't understand how something so
simple as this scenario would require legal advise to know if it were OK or not.



Thanks anyway
Mark