| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:19:00 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> Cc: Sergey Panov <sipan@...an.org>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement Ar Mer, 2006-09-27 am 10:58 +0200, ysgrifennodd Jan Engelhardt: > I think Linus once said that he does not consider the kernel to > become part of a combined work when an application uses the kernel. COPYING top of the kernel source tree. > I tend to agree, it's gray (unless Linus explicitly colorizes it) -- > IIRC the GPL allows a GPL and closed program to interact if they do so > using 'standard' interfaces, i.e. passing a file as argument, or > shell redirection, communicating over a pipe or a socket, etc. > But OTOH, linking code makes it a combined work. No. The definition of a derivative work is a legal one and not a technical one. Take a look at the history of the objective C compiler front end for gcc. It is possible that linked code is not derivative or pipe using code is derivative - consider for example RPC. Simply making a linux device driver make the same function calls to the kernel by RPC messages over a pipe type device would not change its status. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists