[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1159359540.11049.347.camel@localhost.localdomain>
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