lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 12 Apr 2006 11:06:33 +0200 (MEST)
FromJan Engelhardt <>
SubjectRe: GPL issues
<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