[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 13:25:02 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Just so you understand my curiosity: replace
>    Gstreamer with glibc
>    Totem with Linux kernel
> Linux allows binary modules, Totem does not.  The replacment is not
> correct.
I never said a thing about modules. Not even once.

>    Sorenson with Adobe reader.
>    I wanted to understand a simple problem and got into a deep
>    swamp. No more.
> It is quite simple, if you link, then it is considered derivate.  Just
> "talking" to the program in question is not considered deriviate,
> glibc simply talks to Linux, it doesn't link to it.  Much like you can
> have non-free scripts for Bash, which is licensed under the GNU GPL,
> the scripts mearly "talk" to bash, they share no data with bash.
> The problem you are experiencing is that you are mixing two works, one
> with a small clarification of what is considered deriviate.

Define link.

I don't  see any difference between
* "talk to Linux through syscalls"
* "using dlopen, dlsym and all this stuff" in both cases I dont require
compier to do anything, but there is a way to ask GPL code to do your
stuff. Quite a simillar.

I think that you can use GPL through linking. Why? because kernel does
it and I dont see difference between two lines above.

There are four way to get out of this loop
 * I will give up
 * there are subtle differences I can not  understand -> I am hostage
of layers
 * you can comunicate between all GPL and non-GPL programs freely
without license change
 * whatever in any way possible use GPL code is GPL ( the worst
possibility - GPL hegemonia Linux)

Another stupid example:
I will make library A. I will publish it under GPL.
I will take library A and publish it with GPL and small notice above it
(just like linus did ) calling this function through dlopen and dlsym
and dlclose is not considered

Now I have two libraries with GPL license and same source, but one can
be linked to another source, even closed one, while other cant.

I see some others examples and it is really  bother me.


reply via email to

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