Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:42:04 +0200 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: GPL issues |
| |
On 4/11/06, Ramakanth Gunuganti <rgunugan@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am trying to understand the GPL boundaries for > Linux, any clarification provided on the following > issues below would be great: > > As part of a project, I would like to extend the Linux > kernel to support some additional features needed for > the project, the changes will include: > o Modification to Linux kernel. > o Adding new kernel modules. > o New system calls/IOCTLs to use the kernel > modifications/LKMs. > > All kernel changes including LKMs will be released > under GPL. > > Questions: >
Note: The answers to the questions below are based on my own personal understanding of the GPL and the policies of the Linux kernel. Also contacting a lawyer would probably not be a bad idea.
> (Any reference to GPL license while answering these > questions would be great) > > 1. If an application is built on top of this modified > kernel, should the application be released under GPL?
No. Applications that merely use the services the kernel provides need not be GPL.
> Do system calls provide a bounday for GPL? How does > this work with LKMs, all the code for LKMs will be > released but would a userspace application using the > LKMs choose not to use GPL? > Again, a userspace application that merely use kernel services need not be GPL.
> 2. If the application has to be packaged with the > Linux kernel, example: tarball that includes kernel + > application, can this application be released without > GPL. (The changes to Linux kernel are already released > under GPL). > If the application is to be included in the mainline kernel tarball and distributed from kernel.org, then I would say it would need to be GPL. If it's a tarball you provide with a modified kernel with all kernel modifications released under GPL, then a userspace application bundled in the tarball would not nessesarily need to be GPL.
> 3. How does this work if this application + kernel has > to run on a proprietary system on a seperate interface > card? Can I assume that once there is a clear hardware > boundary rest of the software for the system does not > have to be released under GPL? The software for the > interface card will be built and distributed > seperately from the rest of the software. > > 4. Can the GPL code and non-GPL code exist under the > same source tree? > Not in the mainline kernel.
> 5. In case of litigation, will there be pressure to > open up other parts of the software (non-GPL) running > on the same system but on other hardware components > interacting with this new package on a different > interface card? > No idea.
> Anyone trying to build a new application to work on > Linux must have these issues clarified, if you can > share your experiences that would be great too. > > Thanks, > Ram >
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
| |