Hal Duston wrote:
Copying a symbol name doesn't make something a derivative work. I have written code which copies the symbol name strcpy, but that doesn't make my code a derivative work of the standard library which defines strcpy.
Exactly.
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The 'Program', below, refers to any such program or work, and a 'work based on the Program' means either the Program or any *derivative* work under *copyright* *law*: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term 'modification'.) Each licensee is addressed as 'you'." (GPL v2, section 0, emphasis added).
And...
"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'." (17 U.S.C. Sec. 101)
I don't see how a kernel module, that does not contain any kernel source code in its own distributed source code, can be considered a derivative work under these definitions.
~Bradley