From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264273AbTLERGA (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:06:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264286AbTLERF7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:05:59 -0500 Received: from vir1.relay.fluke.com ([129.196.184.25]:354 "EHLO vir1.relay.fluke.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264273AbTLERFv (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:05:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:05:51 -0800 (PST) From: David Dyck To: Jesse Pollard cc: David Schwartz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: <732BE51FE9901143AE04411A11CC465602F155F3@evtexc02.tc.fluke.com> Message-ID: References: <732BE51FE9901143AE04411A11CC465602F155F3@evtexc02.tc.fluke.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 17:05:50.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[08BE7DC0:01C3BB52] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 at 07:06 -0800, Jesse Pollard wrote: > Quite simple. If you include the Linux kernel include files you get a derived > program that must be released under GPL if you distribute that program. When I first read this out out of context, I wondered if you were saying that any executable that I write on my libc5 linux system (and those that were compiled on libc5 systems long ago - like my copy of Adobe acrobat, and RealNetworks real audio) must have been distributed under GPL? [ Please recall that the kernel header files were included in users programs (since /usr/include/asm and /usr/include/linux were symlinks into the kernel sources) and common include files like dirent.h, errno.h, and signal.h. This still works with libc5 and todays Linux 2.4.23. ] You must not be saying that, since Linus said: "There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is just doesn't matter." And after re-reading more of the thread, you must be refering to modules that include kernel include files, right? David