From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FTL2M-0006RM-LM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:44:14 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FTL2L-0006Qy-Kq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:44:14 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTL2L-0006Qo-DA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:44:13 -0400 Received: from [199.45.160.85] (helo=harmony.bsdimp.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1FTL7E-0001Is-Ja for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:49:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:43:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20060411.094301.57440985.imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] why is kqemu closed? From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <200604111636.25101.paul@codesourcery.com> References: <443B32A6.20501@foo-projects.org> <443BC5D4.2010601@win4lin.com> <200604111636.25101.paul@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, paul@codesourcery.com In message: <200604111636.25101.paul@codesourcery.com> Paul Brook writes: : > 4. There is a slippery slope here - : : There's a slippery slope both ways. If you assume vital parts of your system : are going to be closed source then why bother with open source at all. Just : use Windows or HPUX. : : > if Linux kernel policies can change : > to force all kernel-space binding to be GPL (even though Linus decreed : > that this is not the case years ago), what's next? Libraries that make : > kernel interface calls should be GPL rather than LGPL? : : Now you're talking total nonsense. : : The GPL explicitly says that OS is exempt from the requirements placed on an : application: : : "the source code distributed need not include : anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary : form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the : operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component : itself accompanies the executable." I think that you are missing the point. He's not saying that you have to distribute the source (which is what that exemption is about). He's saying that the license on a mere library cannot and should not force applications linked with that library to become a derived work. And he's right about that being a dangerous precident. If I call write(2) in my application, the mere fact that the kernel is GPL'd shouldn't matter for the license of my application. It is not a derived work. The circumlocutions that some people go through to try to show that somehow using internal kernel interfaces make something a derived work do border on the absurd and are a very agressive interpretation of what makes a work a derived work. That interpretation needs to be curbed, otherwise we'd have a slipperly slope where libc becomes GPL'd and merely linking against it once and providing that binary infects the application with the GPL (a position that no court has endorced). Warner