"Licensed" codecs
Pavel Rosenboim
pavelr at coresma.com
Tue Sep 23 17:09:56 UTC 2003
Alan Cox wrote:
>>>Consult a lawyer. The definition of 'derivative' is complicated to say the least.
>>>For actual GPL code the GPL itself deliberately takes a "free nor not at all"
>>>approach.
>>
>>There exist non-GPLd kernel modules, though (NVIDIA drivers,etc...). Do
>>you want to say that they are illegal?
>
>
> As I said consult a lawyer. A body of people including the FSF certainly
> believe they are.
>
Well, if we define 'derivative' in SCO way, then plugins and kernel
modules must be GPLd :)
Seriously, I had and impression that only static linking "enforces" GPL
and dynamically linked code doesn't. Especially in the case of
loaded-on-demand plugins. But IANAL either.
Pavel.
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list