From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 15:00:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:59:49 -0400 Received: from www.topmail.de ([212.255.16.226]:54438 "HELO www.topmail.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 14:59:43 -0400 Message-ID: <00ea01c0d8ba$3412fc30$de00a8c0@homeip.net> From: "mirabilos" To: "Larry McVoy" , "Alan Cox" Cc: , In-Reply-To: <200105091750.f49HoEg20765@chinstrap.CS.Princeton.EDU> <20010509114816.K14127@work.bitmover.com> Subject: Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules? Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 18:58:47 -0000 Organization: eccesys.net Linux development MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > If the free software community understood and accepted this, by the way, > then I think that it removes the need for the LGPL, it's redundant. What is when compiling a DOS/DJGPP programme? IIRC it is statically linked to the libc-dos. IIRC the LGPL here prevents the remaining DOS programme code to be GPL'ed too. I'm neither a lawyer, but this is the difference as I understood. Please correct me if I am wrong. -mirabilos -- EA F0 FF 00 F0 #$@%CARRIER LOST