Re: module license taints kernel.

David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Nov 15, 9:21 am, Bob Tennent <B...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The tainted kernel incorporating the module is surely not an aggregate:

[...]

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and
which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" ...

I'm not sure where you got that from, but it's wrong. An "aggregate"
is any combination made by automated means, as opposed to creative
means,

Exactly. And developing something original such that it can function
as part of some other original work is not 'automated' but
'creative'. The Linux exception for binary modules only applies to
code not originally developed to become part of the Linux kernel,
using some kind of OS-dependent glue layer to interface with it.

[...]

So compilers, linkers, and archivers make aggregates of their input
works.

Archivers have no place in here (except maybe as a blind). Neither
have compilers. But a linker, even if it is only a runtime linker,
does not create 'archives', but combinates different binaries in a way
enabling them to function as a whole, providing some functionality
none of the parts could provide on its own. For this to be possible,
the parts have to be created specifically to make it possible, which
necessitates a creative act.
.