gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code
Date: 21 Jun 2004 15:35:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > Who is talking about the Hurd?  Are you claiming that glibc can't be
> > used without futexes?  
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/nptl/?cvsroot=glibc
> (NPTL is part of the glibc)
> 
> can't be used without futexes.

But futexes are a regular part of the Linux kernel (not just RedHat's
private kernel version) and exported as a generally useful interface.
So where is the violated party?

> > Are you claiming that futexes are kernel internals instead of an
> > exported interface?
> 
> And the difference (with respect to copyright) is ... ?

Are you being dense?  futexes don't need NPTL.  And anyway, the
"worst" that would happen if some copyright holders would try to get
as retentive as you try to be, is that NPTL would be factored out of
glibc and made a separate GPLed library.

> P.S. Linus: The "user program" exception is not an exception at all.

That's why it is not called an exception but a clarification.  You
are really fond of straw men.

Date:   Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:00:21 -0800 (PST)
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To:     Kendall Bennet
cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:
>
> I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux
> Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an
> exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be
> under the GPL.

Nope. No such exception exists.

There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard
system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that
isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is
clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not
derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is
just doesn't matter.

[...]

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]