Re: GPL issues

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 18:17 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 23:18 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> Joshua Hudson wrote:
> >>> On 4/11/06, David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> 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....
> 
> Neither the GPL nor the kernel's COPYING file restricts anyone
> from making kernel changes.  In fact, the GPL expressly permits
> anyone to modify the kernel.  So how the syscalls get there is
> of zero relevance here.

it IS relevant is the change that adds them is seen as being part of the
other work. See clause 2 :)