Re: module license taints kernel.


Rainer Weikusat wrote:

David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

That's exactly what I'm arguing. That a linker is just like
tar+gzip.

This statement has not become more true in the meantime. A linker is
not an archiver because it does not create archive files. An archiver
is not a linker because it does not create combined executables.

You can claim to have refuted any argument of the type "X is just like
Y" by showing that there is some difference between X and Y. However,
to have actually refuted it, you have to show that the difference
*matters* in the context.

Both linkers and archivers "mechanically" combine two works without
any creativity. The result is the same as the input -- the two
original works aggregated.

For copyright purposes, the distinction is creative combination that
can create a new derivative work. Neither linkers nor archivers can do
this. For copyright purposes, they are the same process. They both
combine the works in a mechanical way driven purely by functional
requirements.

DS
.