From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Muhammad Ali <m.ali023@hotmail.com>
Cc: "Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org" <Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org>
Subject: Re: UAPI syscall exception interpretation
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 07:36:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yn3uXKepvbkfLVn9@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR07MB6074897470E212203D5DD417D9CB9@DM6PR07MB6074.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:21:03PM +0000, Muhammad Ali wrote:
> From: Greg KH
> Sent: May 12, 2022 12:03 AM
> To: Muhammad Ali <M.ALI023@hotmail.com>
> Cc: Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org <Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org>
> Subject: Re: UAPI syscall exception interpretation
>
> >On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 09:19:42PM +0000, >Muhammad Ali wrote:
> >> Consider a file: ftpclient.c
> >> Only include is: #include <sys/socket.h>
> >> Then a few hundred lines of personal code.
> >> Then compiler/linker take in ftpcliebt.c and >produce a.out (statically or dynamically linked, >consider both cases if it makes a licensing >difference)
> >>
> >> Does the Linux-syscall-note say that a.out can >ALL be under any license of your choice?
> >>
> >> Or do you have to note that your binary is under >License X and also includes code which is under >license GPL-2.0-WITH-Linux-syscall-note?
>
> >For legal issues, please contact a lawyer. You >wouldn't ask a random
> >internet mailing list full of programmers questions >about dental care,
> >right? :)
> >
> >Good luck!
> >
> >greg k-h
>
> Happy to see you responded Greg, since you have marked this issue as low priority since 2020, see https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/23/105
Other things happened in 2020 that pushed this to the back of the list.
> If we could finally get some clarity or examples to illustrate the exception and license, 2 years later, then that would be very nice, because I am not the only one who is thinking that the current syscall exception text and license.rst are not giving a clear interpretation as to when the GPL applies and on what code it applies. What do I tell the lawyer? “Here’s some conflicting licensing guide and license text and Greg said, on the mailing list, that things will be ‘made obvious’ but nothing has changed so just provide me with what you think”? Shouldn’t I be saying that sentence to the kernel maintainers, instead?
If you have a lawyer that has issues with the current wording and you
need help with that, please let me know and I can put them in contact
with lawyers who can help them understand the issues involved.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-13 5:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-11 21:19 UAPI syscall exception interpretation Muhammad Ali
2022-05-12 4:03 ` Greg KH
2022-05-12 23:21 ` Muhammad Ali
2022-05-13 5:36 ` Greg KH [this message]
2022-05-13 20:43 ` Muhammad Ali
2022-05-14 2:00 ` Valdis Klētnieks
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yn3uXKepvbkfLVn9@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org \
--cc=m.ali023@hotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).