From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751191AbWDLOvj (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:51:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751194AbWDLOvj (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:51:39 -0400 Received: from [4.79.56.4] ([4.79.56.4]:7816 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751191AbWDLOvi (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:51:38 -0400 Subject: Re: GPL issues From: Arjan van de Ven To: jdow Cc: Mark Lord , Joshua Hudson , Ramakanth Gunuganti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <004101c65df4$5eb71ce0$0225a8c0@Wednesday> References: <20060411063127.97362.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> <20060411230642.GV23222@vasa.acc.umu.se> <443C716C.1060103@rtr.ca> <1144819887.3089.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <004101c65df4$5eb71ce0$0225a8c0@Wednesday> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:51:32 +0200 Message-Id: <1144853492.3091.2.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 22:45 -0700, jdow wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 23:18 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > >> Joshua Hudson wrote: > >> > On 4/11/06, David Weinehall wrote: > >> >> OK, simplified rules; if you follow them you should generally be OK: > >> .. > >> >> 3. Userspace code that uses interfaces that was not exposed to userspace > >> >> before you change the kernel --> GPL (but don't do it; there's almost > >> >> always a reason why an interface is not exported to userspace) > >> >> > >> >> 4. Userspace code that only uses existing interfaces --> choose > >> >> license yourself (but of course, GPL would be nice...) > >> > >> Err.. there is ZERO difference between situations 3 and 4. > >> Userspace code can be any license one wants, regardless of where > >> or when or how the syscalls are added to the kernel. > > > > that is not so clear if the syscalls were added exclusively for this > > application by the authors of the application.... > > Consider a book. The book is GPLed. I do not have to GPL my brain when > I read the book. > > I add some margin notes to the GPLed book. I still do not have to GPL > my brain when I read the book. wrong comparison you have a book, book is gpl'd. You have another book with another plot. THat other book doesn't need to be gpl'd. you have a book, book is gpl'd. Your other book now requires the first book to change it's plot so that the two books form a series. This is where your lawyer will get nervous. Think of it differently perhaps, and it's a question of "where is the boundary of the work" You can see the situation with the syscall change in 2 ways: 1) kernel + modification is a work userspace app is a separate work or 2) kernel is a work userspace app and the kernel modification are together one work in this 2nd case you have a GPL issue. The question is if your lawyer can convince the judge that the second interpretation is unreasonable. That may or may not be easy, depending on the exact nature of the modification.