Re: Can linux kernel claim it uses GPL v2?

[kero552]

David Kastrup wrote:
> kero552@gmail.com writes:
>
> > Can linux kernel claim they distribute the kernel under conditions of
> > GPL v2, while they use modified version of GPL v2
>
> They did not modify GPLv2.
>
They most certinally did. You can see file COPYING yourself. They
adjusted term "derived work" - the most uncertain of all. It has legal
meaning, but they changed it.

You cant adjust key term of license and expect it to stay same.
For derived code look at: US Code title 17, kapitole 1 a §101.

> > (thanks to this modification glibc doesnt have to be GPL, but can be
> > LGPL)?
>
> Where do you get those ideas?
>
> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Which ones?

The reason why kernel is GPL while glibc is LGPL is because of syscall
note. On certain architecture it wouldnt matter wheather you call
kernel or dynamic library.

Technically it would be same - same code would be used for calling
kernel and same for dynamic library. Since using GPL dynamic library
requires you to release your code under GPL and kernel is under GPL
then program calling kernel through syscall has to be GPL.

Between Linux kernel and library is no difference except calling
convention.

There were some discussion on one national server and the only thing
they got was this note in COPYING.

This link is rather obsolete and operates with idea that kernel is GPL,
but it should contain most of argumention.
http://www.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~havlj3am/mail2fsf-org.txt

Particulary interesting is text starting with "Another scenarion"