Re: Can linux kernel claim it uses GPL v2?

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Note that the topic of the quote is _not_ the syscall interface, but
> the _linking_ of kernel modules into the kernel.

Go to doctor and take Eben with you.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. According to the GNU Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und 
Propaganda, the topic is "the degree of interpenetration" (which
happens to be "very great" in the case of "kernel modules" and 
"remainder of the kernel").

"> LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see
 > proprietary modules as an infringement?
 >
 > Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the
 > degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder
 > of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with
 > some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is
 > dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and
 > because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what
 > determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear
 > analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the
 > license if it's pure GPL.

 Analytically, the above would be true only if the first Nth
 hyperbolic cosines of the address registers are congruent (in a
 Hilbert Space) to the metric tenor of the hard drive space when
 mapped one to one onto (or is it into?) a finite but unbounded
 timelike manifold.

 Eben's got more bullshit rap than Snoop Dogg. "

                                              -- day5done.