From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264289AbTLET0x (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:26:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264294AbTLET0x (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:26:53 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:14776 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264289AbTLET0v (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:26:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:26:49 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Kendall Bennett cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: <3FD06172.28193.4801EF18@localhost> Message-ID: References: <3FD06172.28193.4801EF18@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote: > > Right, and by extension of the same argument you cannot use kernel > headers to create non-GPL'ed binaries that run IN USER SPACE! This was indeed one of the worries that people had a long time ago, and is one (but only one) of the reasons for the addition of the clarification to the COPYING file for the kernel. So I agree with you from a technical standpoint, and I claim that the clarification in COPYING about user space usage through normal system calls covers that special case. But at the same time I do want to say that I discourage use of the kernel header files for user programs for _other_ reasons (ie for the last 8 years or so, the suggestion has been to have a separate copy of the header files for the user space library). But that's due to technical issues (since I think the language of the COPYING file takes care of all copyright issues): trying to avoid version dependencies. > This exact reasoning is what RedHat (aka Cygnus) has been using for years > with the Cygwin toolkit for Windows. Although 99% of the code built with > the GNU compilers and Cygwin includes the glibc runtime library that is > LGPL, every program *must* include the C runtime library startup code or > it cannot function. *That* code is pure GPL, and by extension any program > using the Cygwin libraries is a derived work and must be GPL. If you > don't like that, by a commercially licensed version of Cygwin from > RedHat/Cygnus instead. And this is an area where I think the GPL just isn't the right license to use - but on the other hand it obviously isn't my decision to make. I'm not touching Cygwin with a ten-foot pole, and that has nothing to do with licensing ;) The GPL just doesn't make a lot of sense for library-like infrastructure. Linus