Re: Can linux kernel claim it uses GPL v2?

[kero552]

David Kastrup wrote:
> >> >> That does not help in itself.  Creating an artificial API does
> >> >> not create an independent work abstraction as long as the
> >> >> library remains the only actual implementation of that API.
> >> >>
> >> > I tried to point it out during OpenGl example, probably wrong way.
> >> > There is an API (well documented) for library and there are two or
> >> > more libraries using the API. One is GPL licensed and the rest
> >> > not. The product doesnt have to be a GPL licensed.
> >> >
> >> > Personally I think this falls under "If identifiable sections of that
> >> > work are not derived from the Program,.." text from section 2, but
> >> > anyway:
> >> > True/False?
> >>
> >> Uh what?
> >>
> > I am giving parallel example to glibc working on different kernels with
> > different licenses.
> > Program can use one of different OpenGl implementation with different
> > licenses.
>
> I am afraid that both your case as well as the question appear so
> confused that it is not even possible guess what you mean here.
>
You cant say that only kernel and glibc can interact and that kernel
can be GPL and glibc can be LGPL.
What condition does software A and B fullfill in order to be used same
way as kernel and glibc. 

Honza