from the libertarian newspaper - the topic that won't die! (Actually GPL)

[Bradley Hook]

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