Re: Can linux kernel claim it uses GPL v2?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > It is quite simple, if you link, then it is considered derivate.
   > Just "talking" to the program in question is not considered
   > deriviate, glibc simply talks to Linux, it doesn't link to it.
   > Much like you can have non-free scripts for Bash, which is
   > licensed under the GNU GPL, the scripts mearly "talk" to bash,
   > they share no data with bash.
   >
   > The problem you are experiencing is that you are mixing two
   > works, one with a small clarification of what is considered
   > deriviate.

   Define link.

Pulling in code dynamically or statically into a loaded executable
during run time from another executable (from the top of my head as a
example).  This does not happen in the case of Linux and glibc.  They
talk to each other.  Nothing more.

   I don't  see any difference between
   * "talk to Linux through syscalls"
   * "using dlopen, dlsym and all this stuff" in both cases I dont require
   compier to do anything, but there is a way to ask GPL code to do your
   stuff. Quite a simillar.

Do you see the difference between telnetd and telnet?  This is how
glibc and Linux interaction looks like.

   I think that you can use GPL through linking. Why? because kernel
   does it and I dont see difference between two lines above.

Linux does not, please stop insisting that it does.

   There are four way to get out of this loop
    * I will give up
    * there are subtle differences I can not  understand -> I am hostage
   of layers

    * you can comunicate between all GPL and non-GPL programs freely
   without license change

This has always been possible, even for non-free programs.  What is
not allowed is to link a GPL program to a GPL incompatibly licensed
library.  This is not about "communitcting", but about "sharing data".

    * whatever in any way possible use GPL code is GPL ( the worst
   possibility - GPL hegemonia Linux)

Simply not true, please stop spreading these kind of absurd
statements.  The GPL has no restrictions on "use". From Section 0 of
the GPL: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

   Another stupid example:
   I will make library A. I will publish it under GPL.
   I will take library A and publish it with GPL and small notice above it
   (just like linus did ) calling this function through dlopen and dlsym
   and dlclose is not considered

This is perfectly valid.  One is always free to add execptions to a
license.  Obviously, the terms cannot contradict what is stated in the
GPL, but other than that...

Cheers.