[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Another kernel releated GPL ?
Alan Cox wrote:
> 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.

Thats one of the things I don't understand. How could a lawyer be qualified
enough to actually give proper advise on this. And how will a court be able to
make a proper decision if it had to. It seems to me they both would have to ask
you all.

> 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.

That's sort of what I was in search of. Where is this "explicit statement" found


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: 2006-10-26 17:05    [W:0.036 / U:10.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site