Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:03:56 +0200 | From | "Pascal Schmidt" <> | Subject | Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] |
| |
Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> schrieb am 07.10.03 02:57:03:
> > So you're saying the LGPL and the GPL mean the same thing for > > libraries? That, for instance, you can handle Qt as if it was LGPL? > I think so, I'm afraid. I know that this view of the law isn't what > people think is true and the end result may well be a court case which > tests it.
Well, for libraries, the only thing that the GPL forbids and the LGPL allows (at least in the eyes of the FSF, grain of salt and all that) is statically linking with the library and then distributing the resulting program under a non-GPL license.
Fits nicely with the boundary definition you gave, because linking statically means that the result is one program and you cannot take it apart without wrecking it.
I think that also applies to kernel modules. Dynamically loading them works like linking with a library dynamically (the lib in this case being the kernel). But statically including code into a module is like static linking. This happens when kernel headers declare non-trivial static inline functions or macros, and that is problematic.
All the more reason for a seperate set of cleaned up linux-abi header, isn't it?
-- Ciao, Pascal
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |