From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263543AbTLJN5y (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:57:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263537AbTLJN5x (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:57:53 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:28683 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263595AbTLJN5w (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:57:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:52:12 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Arjan van de Ven cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Kendall Bennett , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: <1070652154.14996.10.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org So why not do the removal of the inlines to real .c files and quit playing games with bogus attempts to bleed taint into the inprotectable api? Clearly it is a game of bait and switch. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 20:09, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > \ > > Interestingly enough, at least on my Fedora box, 'rpm -qi' reports glibc as LGPL, > > but glibc-kernheaders as GPL, which seems right to me - linking against glibc gives > > the LGPL semantics as we'd want, but forces userspace that's poking in the kernel > > to be GPL as a derived work.... > > but those headers do not have inlines etc etc > just the bare minimum of structures and defines (neither of which result > in code in the binary ) >