Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel

[Michael Buesch <mbuesch@freenet.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:24, you wrote:
> What does this actually mean (I'm no lawyer and somehow confused about it)? As 
> I understand, GPL sais: 'every piece of code that relies on me, must be 
> GPL'ed and therefore be available as source code', while LGPL sais: 'you may 
> develop proprietary software that relies on me, but if you change me, your 
> changes must be available as source code'.
> 
> I want to permit proprietary extensions *in user-space* for my 
> open-source-project, that contains some device-drivers for DSP-cards, and 
> partly relies on them. Does your second statement mean that as long as 
> there's only source-code, it may be LGPL (and extendable), but if you *use* 
> it (e.g. load the kernel-modules), everything that relies on the modules must 
> be GPL?

You may have a look at Linus' comment in the
COPYING file of the kernel tree.

> 			Axel

- -- 
Regards Michael Buesch  [ http://www.tuxsoft.de.vu ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAnLZ6FGK1OIvVOP4RAjvDAKCiFVDEHWOMtR5i/DwTt8iguA2+BwCfWiOa
B1shQRhLGvSWv1/fgNfQOGo=
=6og7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----