Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:02:22 -0400 | From | Mark Hounschell <> | Subject | Re: Another kernel releated GPL ? |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > Ar Iau, 2006-10-26 am 09:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Mark Hounschell: >> Some code is added directly to the kernel source tree. A user land library is >> written to access the changes. It is not GPL or LGPL. Simple scenario. No? I >> thought so at least. > > It isn't a simple scenario because it depends what you are adding and > how the two parts interact, eg how generic they are. >
Thats one of the things I don't understand. How could a lawyer be qualified enough to actually give proper advise on this. And how will a court be able to make a proper decision if it had to. It seems to me they both would have to ask you all.
> Take a memory allocator - if I put a malloc implementation in the kernel > for some strange reason that provides malloc/free/realloc then a library > making use of those clearly isn't very closely tied - they are generic > functions. > > Now suppose I have a device driver that is part kernel and part user > space that calls from one to the other for very specific functions that > are only of use to that driver. >
Hmm.
> In the usual case it doesn't matter, much stuff is GPL anyway, and for > the usual system calls/C library stuff not only is the law probably > fairly well established but there is an explicit statement with the > kernel that we don't want to claim such rights for a normal system call > which would guide a Judge if a case ever came up. > >
That's sort of what I was in search of. Where is this "explicit statement" found BTW.
Thanks Mark
- 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/
| |