[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 10:03:33 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

David Kastrup wrote:
> writes:
> >> > 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.
> The law does not make a significant difference between dynamic and
> static linking, and recompiling would probably be held to the same
> standard as long as the headers don't contain significant
> copyrightable material.

You didnt answer (It depends on whether the program can work without
this _specific_
> >> library or kernel.).
Can glibc work without linux kernel?
Now what is difference between glibc not working w/o kernel and some
GUI program not working w/o library.
FSF says kernel OK, program not.

> >> >> 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.
> >
> > 2. I said it because of you, I would say well documented public API.
> That does not help in itself.  Creating an artificial API does not
> create an independent work abstraction as long as the library remains
> the only actual implementation of that API.
I tried to point it out during OpenGl example, probably wrong way.
There is an API (well documented) for library and there are two or more
libraries using the API. One is GPL licensed and the rest not. The
product doesnt have to be a GPL licensed.

Personally I think this falls under "If identifiable sections of that
work are not derived from the Program,.." text from section 2, but

> > *********
> > 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.
> > *********
> "Correct answers" are given in the court, and then there still is
> appeal.  Ask the respective copyright holders: that will not tell you
> the correct answers, but it will give you a good idea for what acts
> they will drag you before a court where you might get "more correct"
> answers.

> Still address resolution.  But as I said, the technical details don't
> matter that much, actually.  It is the functional relation.
Actually what I said here few post back was that there is no technical
difference between calling syscall and library.
Function problem is same in both cases: glibc wont work w/o kernel and
program w/o library. You say the difference is that kernel is
implementing standard API (POSIX and SYSTEM V.. not really sure), while
library is using some API intended only for this library.


reply via email to

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