Do Google strip out the inline functions? I don't think even the most ardent Google defenders can say that inline functions are not copyrightable.
>If I copy GPL-licensed code into my BSD-licensed library, none of my code has to be relicensed.
If I now want to use your BSD-licenced library surely I am bound by the terms of the GPL, since it includes GPL code. That parts that you wrote are still under the BSD, but the restrictions on use of the overall library will include the GPL terms. Otherwise just inserting a single line of BSD code into a fork of a GPL project would be enough to bypass the GPL.
>Completely and egregiously wrong. Unless these programs are actually copying parts of the kernel into their source, they are not derived works.
So linking proprietary binaries to GPL libraries is legal? Everything I have heard has indicated the opposite, that linking to GPL libraries makes your binary into a derived work (the reason the LGPL exists). I would be very interested in knowing if this is the case or not.
>According to the author's reasoning, glibc is also an illegal derivative work of the Linux kernel
Yes, this issue does seem contradictory.
>all built on the incorrect assumption that running proprietary software on a Free kernel/libc is illegal
It appears to me to be built on the assumption that Linux header files are copyrighted and under the GPL.
Your comment is contradicting the understanding that a lot of people have of the GPL (including presumably Richard Stallman himself, who saw the need to create the LGPL).
Comments
>In the US, APIs are typically considered mere specifications, and cannot be copyrighted
Linus disagrees that the Linux headers are not copyrightable: http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/13
Do Google strip out the inline functions? I don't think even the most ardent Google defenders can say that inline functions are not copyrightable.
>If I copy GPL-licensed code into my BSD-licensed library, none of my code has to be relicensed.
If I now want to use your BSD-licenced library surely I am bound by the terms of the GPL, since it includes GPL code. That parts that you wrote are still under the BSD, but the restrictions on use of the overall library will include the GPL terms. Otherwise just inserting a single line of BSD code into a fork of a GPL project would be enough to bypass the GPL.
>Completely and egregiously wrong. Unless these programs are actually copying parts of the kernel into their source, they are not derived works.
So linking proprietary binaries to GPL libraries is legal? Everything I have heard has indicated the opposite, that linking to GPL libraries makes your binary into a derived work (the reason the LGPL exists). I would be very interested in knowing if this is the case or not.
>According to the author's reasoning, glibc is also an illegal derivative work of the Linux kernel
Yes, this issue does seem contradictory.
>all built on the incorrect assumption that running proprietary software on a Free kernel/libc is illegal
It appears to me to be built on the assumption that Linux header files are copyrighted and under the GPL.
Your comment is contradicting the understanding that a lot of people have of the GPL (including presumably Richard Stallman himself, who saw the need to create the LGPL).