[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1161879434.12781.61.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:17:14 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: markh@...pro.net
Cc: Erik Mouw <erik@...ddisk-recovery.com>, dmarkh@....rr.com,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Another kernel releated GPL ?
Ar Iau, 2006-10-26 am 11:02 -0400, ysgrifennodd Mark Hounschell:
> > 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.
COPYING file in the top directory of the kernel.
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linus Torvalds
-
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