Messages in this thread | | | From | Michael Buesch <> | Subject | Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel | Date | Sat, 8 May 2004 12:29:06 +0200 |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:24, you wrote: > What does this actually mean (I'm no lawyer and somehow confused about it)? As > I understand, GPL sais: 'every piece of code that relies on me, must be > GPL'ed and therefore be available as source code', while LGPL sais: 'you may > develop proprietary software that relies on me, but if you change me, your > changes must be available as source code'. > > I want to permit proprietary extensions *in user-space* for my > open-source-project, that contains some device-drivers for DSP-cards, and > partly relies on them. Does your second statement mean that as long as > there's only source-code, it may be LGPL (and extendable), but if you *use* > it (e.g. load the kernel-modules), everything that relies on the modules must > be GPL?
You may have a look at Linus' comment in the COPYING file of the kernel tree.
> Axel
- -- Regards Michael Buesch [ http://www.tuxsoft.de.vu ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAnLZ6FGK1OIvVOP4RAjvDAKCiFVDEHWOMtR5i/DwTt8iguA2+BwCfWiOa B1shQRhLGvSWv1/fgNfQOGo= =6og7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - 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/
| |