![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
<obligatory_ianal_marker> >Suppose I use the linux-vrf patch for the kernel that is freely >available and use the extended setsocket options such as SO_VRF in an >application, do I have to release my application under GPL since I am >using a facility in the kernel that a standard linux kernel does not >provide?> If vrf has no other uses besides your proprietary application, I'd shudder. >Suppose my LKM driver adds a extra header to all outgoing packets and >removes the extra header from the incoming packets, should this driver >be released under GPL.? In a way it extends the functionality of >linux, if I do release the driver code under GPL because this was >built with linux in mind, Should I release the application which >adds intelligence to interpret the extra header under GPL? > I don't know an answer (not even a rough one), since there is AFAICS one example of what you describe: the CiscoVPN kernel module. The source is available (so you have a chance to run it on any kernel you like), but it's got a typical EULA. No sign of GPL. Jan Engelhardt -- - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-04-12 09:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||