Messages in this thread |  | | | From | "Kendall Bennett" <> | | Date | Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:44:03 -0800 | | Subject | RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > That's 6,288 chances for you to #include GPL code and end up > > with executable derived from it in *your* .o file, not the kernel's. > > I'm sorry, but that just doesn't matter. The GPL gives you the > unrestricted right to *use* the original work. This implicitly > includes the right to peform any step necessary to use the work. > (This is why you can 'make a copy' of a book on your retina if you > have the right to read it.) Please tell me how you use a kernel > header file, other than by including it in a code file, compiling > that code file, and executing the result.
Another point worth mentioning is that if the Linux kernel headers are pure GPL, then user land programs that use the Linux kernel headers themselves would also be pure GPL by extension if the above argument holds water. Clearly the Linux developers would like to believe otherwise, but there are many Linux user mode programs that will make use of GPL kernel headers in their non-GPL programs. And some of that code will include inline assembler and inline functions to make calls into the kernel.
Likewise, by extension, any runtime library that uses GPL header files from the kernel directly would have to also be pure GPL. This means glibc folks. We all know glibc is LGPL, but if you link pure GPL code with LGPL code the entire work must be *GPL*, not LGPL if it is considered a derived work.
Regards,
--- Kendall Bennett Chief Executive Officer SciTech Software, Inc. Phone: (530) 894 8400 http://www.scitechsoft.com ~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~
- 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/
|  |