From: Wei Weng <wweng@kencast.com>
To: Timur Tabi <ttabi@interactivesi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic
Date: 21 Jun 2001 16:01:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <993153729.7844.3.camel@Monet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <qi1bhC.A.lfF.ZEkM7@dinero.interactivesi.com>
In-Reply-To: <qi1bhC.A.lfF.ZEkM7@dinero.interactivesi.com>
On 21 Jun 2001 13:46:48 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@snark.thyrsus.com> on Thu, 21
> Jun 2001 14:14:42 -0400
>
>
> > To calm down the lawyers, I as the principal kernel maintainer and
> > anthology copyright holder on the code am therefore adding the
> > following interpretations to the kernel license:
> >
> > 1. Userland programs which request kernel services via normal system
> > calls *are not* to be considered derivative works of the kernel.
> >
> > 2. A driver or other kernel component which is statically linked to
> > the kernel *is* to be considered a derivative work.
> >
> > 3. A kernel module loaded at runtime, after kernel build, *is not*
> > to be considered a derivative work.
>
> Although these are good things to add, I don't think they're compatible with
> the GPL. That is, Linus can't just state these "interpretations" and add them
> to the GPL, because it will weaken the GPL as a whole. I say that because you
> do not include any language that clarifies that from a legal sense.
Hell, why does the linux community need to care about other *greedy*
people who don't want to GPL their work anyway? If you want to protect
GPL as the principle in Linux, well, screw the device driver makers!
> I heard recently that kernel modules are technically, from the GPL
> point-of-view, a derivative work, because they include kernel header files.
> However, since Linus understands that this precludes binary-only modules, he has
> "made an exception" to the Linux kernel license.
>
> The problem with that is that I have never seen any written evidence of this.
>
> IANAL, but IMO, there are only two solutions:
>
> 1. License the Linux kernel under a different license that is effectively the
> GPL but with additional text that clarifies the binary module issue.
> Unfortunately, this license cannot be called the GPL. Politically, this would
> probably be a bad idea.
>
> 2. License the Linux kernel under TWO licenses, one the GPL, and another which
> talks about the binary module issue. Unfortunately, this would probably not
> work either, as technically these two licenses are incompatible.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that this issue won't be resolve simply by
> some "interpretations" by Linus as to what is and is not a derived work. I
> think the FSF needs to be involved in this.
>
> To be honest, I disagree that #include'ing a GPL header file should force your
> app to be GPL as well. That may be how the license reads, but I think it's a
> very bad idea. I could write 1 million lines of original code, but if someone
> told me that but simply adding #include <stdio.h> my code is now a derivative of
> the stdio.h, I'd tell him to go screw himself.
What is the difference between including kernel header file and
including GPLed header file?
Best Regards,
Wei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-21 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-21 18:14 Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic Eric S. Raymond
2001-06-21 18:30 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-21 19:17 ` Eric S. Raymond
2001-06-21 19:51 ` Andrew Pimlott
2001-06-21 20:13 ` Eric S. Raymond
2001-06-21 20:46 ` Andrew Pimlott
2001-06-21 21:02 ` Timur Tabi
2001-06-21 21:05 ` Andrew Pimlott
2001-06-21 21:17 ` Timur Tabi
2001-06-21 20:17 ` David S. Miller
2001-06-21 20:29 ` Timur Tabi
2001-06-21 18:39 ` Jeff Golds
2001-06-21 18:51 ` Jeff Mahoney
2001-06-21 20:02 ` Steve Brueggeman
2001-06-21 18:46 ` Timur Tabi
2001-06-21 19:03 ` Timur Tabi
2001-06-21 19:53 ` Erik Mouw
2001-06-21 19:04 ` Mike Harrold
2001-06-21 19:14 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-21 20:12 ` Marco Colombo
2001-06-21 21:14 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-21 20:31 ` Timur Tabi
2001-06-21 19:08 ` Timur Tabi
2001-06-21 19:17 ` Alexander Viro
2001-06-21 20:01 ` Wei Weng [this message]
2001-06-21 19:06 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-21 19:34 ` Jonathan Lundell
2001-06-21 20:17 ` D. Stimits
2001-06-22 11:32 ` Rob Landley
2001-06-21 20:34 ` Craig Milo Rogers
2001-06-21 21:35 ` Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic (long) Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
2001-06-22 12:32 ` Fair Use (Was Re: Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic) Rob Landley
2001-06-22 1:29 ` Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-22 10:44 ` David Woodhouse
2001-06-23 20:11 ` Fabrice Gautier
2001-06-21 19:22 Disconnect
2001-06-21 19:24 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-21 19:25 Jesse Pollard
2001-06-21 21:43 Timur Tabi
2001-06-22 3:05 Rick Hohensee
2001-06-22 4:05 ` kumon
2001-06-23 22:29 ` Scott Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=993153729.7844.3.camel@Monet \
--to=wweng@kencast.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ttabi@interactivesi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).