Re: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic

[Disconnect <lkml@sigkill.net>]

In-Reply-To: <E15D9u7-0001xo-00@the-village.bc.nu>

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox did have cause to say:

> An application is clearly not a derivative work in the general case, and they
> are linked with glibc which is LGPL and gives the users the choice and right
> to run non-free apps. 

IANAL, and this may be a dumb question, but what about LGPLing the driver
abstraction layer and/or headers? (Presuming of course there -is- a driver
abstraction layer that would work for 99% of the drivers.)  That leaves
the kernel safe (since LGPL says link whatever under whichever license,
GPL is valid for kernel core) and -specifically- allows any license you
like for HW/SW vendors who want to make modules.

---
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1 [www.ebb.org/ungeek]
GIT/CC/CM/AT d--(-)@ s+:-- a-->? C++++$ ULBS*++++$ P- L+++>+++++ 
E--- W+++ N+@ o+>$ K? w--->+++++ O- M V-- PS+() PE Y+@ PGP++() t
5--- X-- R tv+@ b++++>$ DI++++ D++(+++) G++ e* h(-)* r++ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------