From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932096AbWDLIQQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2006 04:16:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932101AbWDLIQQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2006 04:16:16 -0400 Received: from mail.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.156]:13009 "EHLO mail.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932096AbWDLIQQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2006 04:16:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:16:13 +0200 From: David Weinehall To: Pramod Srinivasan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL issues Message-ID: <20060412081613.GX23222@vasa.acc.umu.se> Mail-Followup-To: Pramod Srinivasan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Editor: Vi Improved X-Accept-Language: Swedish, English X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7ACE 0FB0 7A74 F994 9B36 E1D1 D14E 8526 DC47 CA16 X-GPG-Key: http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/files/pub_dc47ca16.gpg.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:01:02AM -0700, Pramod Srinivasan wrote: > > 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...) > > > 5. Userspace code that depends on interfaces you added to the kernel > > --> consult a lawyer (if this interface is something completely new, > > you can *probably* use your own license for the userland part; if the > > interface is more or less a wrapper of existing functionality, GPL) > > An example could be helpful in clarifying the GPL license. > > Suppose I use the linux-vrf patch for the kernel that is freely > available and use the extended setsocket options such as SO_VRF in an > application, do I have to release my application under GPL since I am > using a facility in the kernel that a standard linux kernel does not > provide? > > Suppose my LKM driver adds a extra header to all outgoing packets and > removes the extra header from the incoming packets, should this driver > be released under GPL.? In a way it extends the functionality of > linux, if I do release the driver code under GPL because this was > built with linux in mind, Should I release the application which > adds intelligence to interpret the extra header under GPL? As I said above, you need to consult a lawyer in unclear cases. The examples you list above seems innocent enough, but again, I am not a lawyer. A lot has to do with intent. Are you exporting things to userland just to workaround the GPL? If so, you're likely violating the GPL... =) Regards: david -- /) David Weinehall /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/