Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Dec 1998 23:14:10 -0500 (EST) | From | Eric Lee Green <> | Subject | Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux |
| |
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, George Bonser wrote: > QUESTION: Say IBM wrote their own mmap.c replacement with no GPL code in > it. Can they distribute a binary kernel image made with that mmap.c > without distributing the source to that small program?
The GPL is pretty clear. The GPL says it applies to the entire program, not just to part of it. The GPL defines the entire program as the program itself and anything linked into the program. The only exception is for operating system libraries, which are allowed to be linked into your program even though they may be non-free if you're on Solaris or etc.
Thus the binary modules bit is shaky but arguable, since the code is not actually linked into the kernel but, rather, loaded as a separate object into kernel space via a standard API. mmap.c, on the other hand, is definitely linked into the kernel and thus IBM cannot replace it with a proprietary one without the replacement also being under GPL.
-- Eric Lee Green eric@linux-hw.com http://www.linux-hw.com/~eric "Linux represents a best-of-breed UNIX, that is trusted in mission critical applications..." -- internal Microsoft memo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |