From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 06:12:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 06:12:05 -0400 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:16893 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 06:12:04 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <20020525143333.A17889@work.bitmover.com> To: Larry McVoy Cc: "Albert D. Cahalan" , Linus Torvalds , Wolfgang Denk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 11:11:38 +0100 Message-ID: <22471.1022407898@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org lm@bitmover.com said: > On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:22:43PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > > To get a free patent license, EVERYTHING must be GPL. > > Not just the real-time part! So that would be: > > > > 1. the RT microkernel (OK) > > 2. the RT "app" (OK) > > 3. Linux itself (OK) > > 4. normal Linux apps (ouch!) > Whether that is true or not I don't know. But I do know that if all > the stuff was GPLed, then you are safe no matter what, right? It's been asserted that the patent licence requires that _all_ userspace apps running on the system by GPL'd. Yet there are many Free Software applications in a standard Linux distribution that are under GPL-incompatible licences. Apache, xinetd, etc... If that interpretation is true, it _would_ be a problem, and not just for those trying to make money from it. -- dwmw2