Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: GPL issues | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:15:13 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 18:17 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 23:18 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > >> Joshua Hudson wrote: > >>> On 4/11/06, David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> wrote: > >>>> OK, simplified rules; if you follow them you should generally be OK: > >> .. > >>>> 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...) > >> Err.. there is ZERO difference between situations 3 and 4. > >> Userspace code can be any license one wants, regardless of where > >> or when or how the syscalls are added to the kernel. > > > > that is not so clear if the syscalls were added exclusively for this > > application by the authors of the application.... > > Neither the GPL nor the kernel's COPYING file restricts anyone > from making kernel changes. In fact, the GPL expressly permits > anyone to modify the kernel. So how the syscalls get there is > of zero relevance here.
it IS relevant is the change that adds them is seen as being part of the other work. See clause 2 :)
- 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/
| |