apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sander Striker <stri...@apache.org>
Subject Re: gdbm licence issue
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:02:19 GMT
On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 20:54, Joe Orton wrote:
> > I'm not sure how you view apr_dbm_gdbm.c as a derivative work of GDBM.  Is 
> > it the fact that it calls some C functions qualifies as a derivative work?  
> 
> Well the more I think about it the more clear-cut it gets :)
> apr_dbm_gdbm.c is based on GDBM: it is derived from the GDBM source code
> (gdbm.h), it will not compile without GDBM, it does not exist except to
> be used with GDBM.  It is no mere coincidence that the symbols match up,
> and that when you compile the file it actually does something useful.

This would make the use of any OS header files a derived work of the OS,
I can't imagine you think this is the case.

> I'm a bit surprised this is a contentious issue: this is how the GPL is
> and always has been interpreted.  It is illegal to redistribute modules
> for the Linux kernel except under the terms of the GPL because such
> modules are derived works of the Linux kernel by virtue of using its
> interfaces.  This is no different.

Huh?  So how do you explain the existence of propietary modules, the
ones that once loaded make a certain 'tainted' keyword appear?

Sander


Mime
View raw message