[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic
In-Reply-To: <>

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox did have cause to say:

> An application is clearly not a derivative work in the general case, and they
> are linked with glibc which is LGPL and gives the users the choice and right
> to run non-free apps.

IANAL, and this may be a dumb question, but what about LGPLing the driver
abstraction layer and/or headers? (Presuming of course there -is- a driver
abstraction layer that would work for 99% of the drivers.) That leaves
the kernel safe (since LGPL says link whatever under whichever license,
GPL is valid for kernel core) and -specifically- allows any license you
like for HW/SW vendors who want to make modules.

Version: 3.1 []
GIT/CC/CM/AT d--(-)@ s+:-- a-->? C++++$ ULBS*++++$ P- L+++>+++++
E--- W+++ N+@ o+>$ K? w--->+++++ O- M V-- PS+() PE Y+@ PGP++() t
5--- X-- R tv+@ b++++>$ DI++++ D++(+++) G++ e* h(-)* r++ y++
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.037 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site