From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 10:16:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 10:16:17 -0400 Received: from [80.120.128.82] ([80.120.128.82]:46866 "EHLO hofr.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 10:16:17 -0400 From: Der Herr Hofrat Message-Id: <200205251321.g4PDLLU16552@hofr.at> Subject: Re: RTAI/RtLinux In-Reply-To: <1022334170.15111.199.camel@rawpower> from Erwin Rol at "May 25, 2002 03:42:50 pm" To: Erwin Rol Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:21:21 +0200 (CEST) CC: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, RTAI users X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL60 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > LGPL can be used as GPL. If you haven't even read the license do that > > before the flamewar please. > > > > I know this, the point is that when you use the LGPL to be used as the > GPL it is not really LGPL anymore. A binary program using GLIBC depends > on the fact that GLIBC allows that (because of its LGPL license). What i > wanted to say is that "allowance" might be taken away by the patent > license. The basic problem is again that some people want to have the privileges of GPL without the responsibilities of GPL. That is a very old debate and I don't think it is sensible to krank it through again. Do GPL work and you can use the services of the comunity, do non-GPL and you need to get these services under other terms. I realy don't see whats so wrong unfair and evil about this. > It is like a patent on VM management, or some other kernel internal > technique, does that mean that that patent is also has something to say > about ppl that write programs for that OS ? The same with LXRT (the > userspace part of RTAI), its implementation might fall under the patent, > but does the program that uses the LXRT services also fall under the > patent ? The question of derived work is realy exhaustively discused and there are plenty of statements on this including statements by the FSF itselfe. mere agregation of work does not put you under any copywrite restrictions, derived work does - drawing this line is not easy and expecting anybody to give you "the definitive guide on derived work" is a bit naiv. You might want to scan the FSF statements on these issues... hofrat