[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Can linux kernel claim it uses GPL v2?

From: kero552
Subject: Re: Can linux kernel claim it uses GPL v2?
Date: 7 Oct 2006 09:16:39 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

David Kastrup wrote:
> writes:
> Kernel is pretty different than a library.  It has threads of its own.
Not necessary. Kernel with cooperative multitasking is easy to achieve
and on some platforms ony solution. Anyway read paragraphs starting
with "Another scenerio" in
Way o

> > Not really. I am looking for reason, why some programs using kernel
> > can be not-GPL, while programs using GPL library has to be GPL.
> It depends on whether the program can work without this _specific_
> library or kernel.
So... tell me about kernel I can easily switch to - without recompiling
glibc AND changing source. System calls are very similar in FreeBSD and
Linux, however system call 208 for example is different.


This could work with OpenGl implementation, there are nvidia, mesa...
maybe somthing else. But kernel - not a chance. And even these OGl
implementation differs in supported extension or standard OpenGl 2.0 (I
am not sure, since I dont observe opengl implementation very often).

> >> Not really.  The reason is that there is a clear cut separation of
> >> functionality with a _standard_ API between them.  Also glibc works

> > So you are saying if I make a standard API for GPL library, I can
> > use different license.
> Uh, you can't "make" a standard API for GPL library.  Look up the
> definition of "standard" in a dictionary of your choice.
1. standards develop during time.
2. I said it because of you, I would say well documented public API.

> But you'll find that GNU libraries that are programmed according to a
> preexisting (and probably standard) API are pretty much uniformly
> licensed under the LGPL.  And while this is not the official reason
> cited for this choice, it is one area where the FSF would not want to
> have the "linking constitutes derivation" theory tested in court.  So
> they use a license that explicitly does not pursue the linking idea.
Yes, but it is basically what *I* pursue. I want correct (="linking
constitutes derivation" is either violated in kernel or unjust for the
rest) answer.

Just a thought:
If you look at dlopen dlsym and dlclose you will see something quite a
similar to kernel syscall. No linking required, just dlopen(is library
there?), dlsym("give me pointer to function") and you have to call the
pointer with proper parameters... parameters documented somewhere else.

> > About using GPL library means GPL program or kernel.
> > The only difference I see is that calling kernel requires filling
> > certain registers and calling int 0x80 (on i386), while calling
> > function require pushing arguments on stack and jump to certain
> > adress.
> Not "certain address", but a symbolic entry point that will get
> resolved by the linker and combined executable and library, adapting
> the executable according to the actual memory layout of the library.
See man dlopen, dlsym and dlclose. No linking required by compiler.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]