Re: Can linux kernel claim it uses GPL v2?

[kero552]

David Kastrup wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Wrong.  The _only_ difference as compared to GPLv2 is that _before_
> the license text itself, we have...
>The whole idea of a system call is to provide an API
>that can call the given services _without_ requiring an act of address
>resolution aka linking.
And your point? My point is - we have GPL kernel -> we use it as a
library, yet we can use some other license for program. We cant do it
with standard GPL library.


> You are spreading misinformation.
Possible as side effect. My goal is to understand, why programs using
kernel can be not-GPL, while programs using GPL library has to be GPL.

> No adjustment whatsoever takes place.
Point taken. However it means "library turns into kernel " is still
there and waiting.

> > For derived code look at: US Code title 17, kapitole 1 a §101.
> And your point was?
It should be definition of derived work. Since no change of term
"derived work" occured, this is compleatly irrelevant.

> >> Where do you get those ideas?
> > Which ones?
>
> That the license note by Torvalds has _anything_ whatsoever to do with
> glibc/GPL/LGPL.  That's really utter hogwash.
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.

> > The reason why kernel is GPL while glibc is LGPL is because of
> > syscall note.
>
> Not really.  The reason is that there is a clear cut separation of
> functionality with a _standard_ API between them.  Also glibc works
> fine on a number of systems without Linux kernel, so it can hardly be
> called derived from the kernel.  And the case does not become better
> by GNU libc having existed before Linux.

So you are saying if I make a standard API for GPL library, I can use
different license.

> > 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.
>
> Nonsense.
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.
In both cases it will end up on some address in memory, where computer
will do some thing and returns back.

Honza

Do not take it personally, but I asked a lot of people and there were
no answers, so I am looking for them.