Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > Since glibc is not even particular to Linux, you can't claim it 
> > being an extension/plugin/whatever that can't be used without the 
> > kernel.
> 
> Do you already have futexes in hurd?

Who is talking about the Hurd?  Are you claiming that glibc can't be
used without futexes?  Are you claiming that futexes are kernel
internals instead of an exported interface?

> > > > Even if glibc happened to be linked into the kernel (which it
> > > > isn't)
> > >
> > > What do you mean? That ring protection is the only boundary that
> > > the GPL can't cross?
> > 
> > Care for a somewhat less obtuse statement?
> 
> I mean system calls.

Which are an exported interface, and a standardized interface, to
boot.  Even if you were unclear about that concept, the Linux kernel
contains an explicit clarification that use of this interface is not
making any program a derived work of the kernel as far as the kernel
copyright holder's view is concerned.

> [...]  > only where the combined work becomes an inseparable whole
> that is > beyond the scope of copyright law's aggregation clauses
> that the terms > of the GPL demand that the combination as a whole
> is licenced under > the GPL.
> 
> ROFL.

Since the GPL is not a contract but a unilaterally granted licence, it
can't extend to more than copyright.  This is written right in the
GPL.

If you fail to understand that concept, this is your problem.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum