Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:01:02 -0700 | From | "Pramod Srinivasan" <> | Subject | Re: GPL issues |
| |
> 3. Userspace code that uses interfaces that was not exposed to userspace > before you change the kernel --> GPL (but don't do it; there's almost > always a reason why an interface is not exported to userspace)
> 4. Userspace code that only uses existing interfaces --> choose > license yourself (but of course, GPL would be nice...)
> 5. Userspace code that depends on interfaces you added to the kernel > --> consult a lawyer (if this interface is something completely new, > you can *probably* use your own license for the userland part; if the > interface is more or less a wrapper of existing functionality, GPL)
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?
Suppose my LKM driver adds a extra header to all outgoing packets and removes the extra header from the incoming packets, should this driver be released under GPL.? In a way it extends the functionality of linux, if I do release the driver code under GPL because this was built with linux in mind, Should I release the application which adds intelligence to interpret the extra header under GPL?
Thanks, Pramod - 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/
| |