linux-kernel - Re: Another kernel releated GPL ?

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]

Date:	Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:02:22 -0400
From:	Mark Hounschell <markh@...pro.net>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Erik Mouw <erik@...ddisk-recovery.com>, dmarkh@....rr.com,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Another kernel releated GPL ?

Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Iau, 2006-10-26 am 09:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Mark Hounschell:
>> Some code is added directly to the kernel source tree. A user land library is
>> written to access the changes. It is not GPL or LGPL. Simple scenario. No? I
>> thought so at least.
> 
> It isn't a simple scenario because it depends what you are adding and
> how the two parts interact, eg how generic they are.
> 

Thats one of the things I don't understand. How could a lawyer be qualified
enough to actually give proper advise on this. And how will a court be able to
make a proper decision if it had to. It seems to me they both would have to ask
you all.

> Take a memory allocator - if I put a malloc implementation in the kernel
> for some strange reason that provides malloc/free/realloc then a library
> making use of those clearly isn't very closely tied - they are generic
> functions.
> 
> Now suppose I have a device driver that is part kernel and part user
> space that calls from one to the other for very specific functions that
> are only of use to that driver.
> 

Hmm.

> In the usual case it doesn't matter, much stuff is GPL anyway, and for
> the usual system calls/C library stuff not only is the law probably
> fairly well established but there is an explicit statement with the
> kernel that we don't want to claim such rights for a normal system call
> which would guide a Judge if a case ever came up.
> 
> 

That's sort of what I was in search of. Where is this "explicit statement" found
BTW.

Thanks
Mark



-
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/