From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423521AbWJZOS4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:18:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423522AbWJZOS4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:18:56 -0400 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:58271 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423521AbWJZOS4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:18:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Another kernel releated GPL ? From: Alan Cox To: markh@compro.net Cc: Erik Mouw , dmarkh@cfl.rr.com, linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <4540B414.7040406@compro.net> References: <4540839C.6010302@cfl.rr.com> <1161861128.12781.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45409BFA.8000507@compro.net> <20061026121041.GB12420@harddisk-recovery.com> <4540B414.7040406@compro.net> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:21:48 +0100 Message-Id: <1161872508.12781.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ar Iau, 2006-10-26 am 09:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Mark Hounschell: > Some code is added directly to the kernel source tree. A user land library is > written to access the changes. It is not GPL or LGPL. Simple scenario. No? I > thought so at least. It isn't a simple scenario because it depends what you are adding and how the two parts interact, eg how generic they are. Take a memory allocator - if I put a malloc implementation in the kernel for some strange reason that provides malloc/free/realloc then a library making use of those clearly isn't very closely tied - they are generic functions. Now suppose I have a device driver that is part kernel and part user space that calls from one to the other for very specific functions that are only of use to that driver. In the usual case it doesn't matter, much stuff is GPL anyway, and for the usual system calls/C library stuff not only is the law probably fairly well established but there is an explicit statement with the kernel that we don't want to claim such rights for a normal system call which would guide a Judge if a case ever came up. Alan