Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Another kernel releated GPL ? | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:21:48 +0100 |
| |
Ar Iau, 2006-10-26 am 09:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Mark Hounschell: > Some code is added directly to the kernel source tree. A user land library is > written to access the changes. It is not GPL or LGPL. Simple scenario. No? I > thought so at least.
It isn't a simple scenario because it depends what you are adding and how the two parts interact, eg how generic they are.
Take a memory allocator - if I put a malloc implementation in the kernel for some strange reason that provides malloc/free/realloc then a library making use of those clearly isn't very closely tied - they are generic functions.
Now suppose I have a device driver that is part kernel and part user space that calls from one to the other for very specific functions that are only of use to that driver.
In the usual case it doesn't matter, much stuff is GPL anyway, and for the usual system calls/C library stuff not only is the law probably fairly well established but there is an explicit statement with the kernel that we don't want to claim such rights for a normal system call which would guide a Judge if a case ever came up.
Alan
- 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/
| |