linux-kernel - Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1159342569.2653.30.camel@sipan.sipan.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Sep 2006 03:36:09 -0400
From:	Sergey Panov <sipan@...an.org>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 07:55 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: 
> >Fuzzy (but realistic) logic:
> >
> >   kernel != operating_system
> >
> >   operating_system > kernel
> >
> >   operating_system - kernel = 0
> >
> >   kernel - (operating_system - kernel) < 0
> >
> >Another (license compatibility) Q. is:
> >    If the (operating_system - kernel) is re-licensed under v.3 and
> >    the kernel is still under v.2 , would it be possible to distribute
> >    combination (kernel + (operating_system - kernel)) ?
> 
> If by operating system you mean the surrounding userland application,

almost, surrounding_userland_applications = (operating_system - kernel) 

> then yes, why should there be a problem with a GPL2 kernel and a GPL3 
> userland? After all, the userland is not only GPL, but also BSD and 
> other stuff.

It was not a problem with GPL[0-1]/BSD/MIT license, but is it still true
with GPL3? What is the difference between running application on the top
of the kernel "A" and linked with the library "B"?

> >The last Q. is how good is the almost forgotten Hurd kernel?
> 
> Wild guess: At most on par with Minix.

... ???. I am not so sure. Kernel is really a small thing. The VMWare
proprietary hyper-visor was/is reusing Linux drivers with ease, why BSD or
Hurd can not do the same? As a former (Linux) driver writer I like to show the
following numbers to my friends:

$ du -s lib kernel  net drivers
980     lib
1728    kernel
16132   net
130872  drivers

and:

$ find ./kernel -type f -exec cat  {} + | wc -l
48312
$ find ./drivers -type f -exec cat  {} + | wc -l
3367849

================================================================

PS. Given that some of the sub-systems (e.g SCSI) in Linux still suck
badly, other OS (not as in Operating Systems but as in Open Source)
alternatives might eventually gain some ground in the enterprise
environment.

 


-
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/