From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: add explicit copyright to header can/netlink.h Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:59:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20130910075907.GB24802@pengutronix.de> References: <1378477811-3606-1-git-send-email-mkl@pengutronix.de> <20130906193744.GV24802@pengutronix.de> <522AFEA8.3020303@hartkopp.net> <522AFF20.6000501@pengutronix.de> <3cfa97cc2473a26f5f961bfb4560acd0@grandegger.com> <522CCB73.3090504@hartkopp.net> <522CD430.1020009@grandegger.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:55994 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753990Ab3IJH7O (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 03:59:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <522CD430.1020009@grandegger.com> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: Oliver Hartkopp , Marc Kleine-Budde , linux-can@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de Hello Wolfgang, On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 09:46:56PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > On 09/08/2013 09:09 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > > And then - just to make it really sure - this additional sentence i= s written: > >=20 > > * The provided data structures and external interfaces from this c= ode > > * are not restricted to be used by modules with a GPL compatible l= icense. >=20 > The question is if this sentence is a legal addition to the GPL licen= se. > I personally doubt but I'm not a lawyer. INAL, too, but I think it's at least quite usual, even Linux' COPYING does something like that: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"= =2E One of the main issues of the GPL is the definition of "derived work". There are discussions about kernel modules, extensions to userspace programs, output generated by a program etc. pp. So I think it's fine t= o explicitly note if you consider a certain usage of your code to be a derived work or not. So I'd say such a statement is not a restriction and so should be fine. Best regards Uwe --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig = | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/= |