Re: Kernel header files in applications and GPL issues

From: Paul D. Smith (psmith_at_nortelnetworks.com)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: 15 Jun 2004 01:00:52 -0400

%% droopycom@yahoo.com (Fabrice Gautier) writes:

  fg> I dont really care about libc, I can reimplement (or buy) whatever
  fg> I need (which is something much smaller than the full glibc).

So, then you have no problems.

You should be more specific in your questions, and you'll get more
reasonable answers. If _ALL_ you care about is the kernel then you
should say so up-front.

  fg> Think embedded. In my case, I have static apps, so I would have to
  fg> release my .o in a link kit, which is at best annoying and at
  fg> worst a big problem for your own customers.

Again, if you're talking about static linking please say so. Asking a
very broad question then coming back with your _real_ requirements,
which are very different than what people normally are looking for, in
dribs and drabs over the course of a day-long thread is not very
productive for us _or_ you.

Anyway you don't have to release your code _solely_ as a link kit. You
just have to agree to provide a link kit if someone asks you for one.
Your customers won't know the difference and the amount of extra work is
probably pretty minimal (nothing in the GPL says you have to provide a
fully engineered build environment).

  fg> Linus didnt write asm-arm/unistd.h. If Russel King (who has his
  fg> copyright in this file) agrees, then I wonder why he puts a GPL
  fg> notice in this file.

All code in the Linux kernel is released under the same base license
terms. If the author didn't agree to those terms, they wouldn't
contribute it to the kernel.

Some code in the kernel allows other terms as well (some is released
under a modified BSD license or whatever), but all the code gives _at
least_ those terms.

  fg> But at least you have only one entity to ask for permission if you
  fg> want to do anything or if you have a doubt on what you can do with
  fg> their software.

This is only true if you use nothing but Microsoft software.

Now that you've explained that you only care about the kernel, the same
thing is true of Linux. 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <psmith@nortelnetworks.com>   HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel
    ... > These folks have nothing new to innovate here. ... > module compatibility busted every rev of the kernel. ... But not about the same thing you care about. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH 3/3] Time to make CONFIG_PARAVIRT non-experimental.
    ... Those most likely to care can turn it off. ... I generally try to stick with the distro kernel when possible, ... Actually if I understand the functionality of paravirt correctly that is ... Besides it's bad taste and taste is very important. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Does anyone know what this switch does?
    ... although the scripts are the same in both cases: ... kernel, and the kernel is not at all forgiving of possible stuff like a ... some flavor of Unix without converting the line endings. ... care, and the kernel doesn't care once it finds the start of an argument ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • [opensuse] Re: A BIG "show stopper" for openSUSE at the corporate level anyway!!
    ... I've seen OAS systems that care about file types or allow ... says "my business is more important than the users". ... "being protected" means for them that they can download and run ... kernel devs to work on and create a more stable kernel, ...
    (SuSE)