Messages in this thread |  | | | From | "David Schwartz" <> | | Subject | RE: GPL issues | | Date | Fri, 14 Apr 2006 04:39:56 -0700 |
| |
> An example could be helpful in clarifying the GPL license. > > 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?
Almost definitely not. Here you have two works that provide two distinctly different functions and communicate across a well-defined boundary. In theory, the two works could have been developed completely independently, so one cannot be a derivative work of the other. The thing you need to remember is that the API that userspace uses to communicate with the kernel is itself a work. In this case, it almost certainly is purely functional and contains no protectable, copyrightable content. Both the kernel changes and the user-space code take only from the API. They do not take from each other.
DS
- 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/
|  |