From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264323AbTLEP53 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:57:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264324AbTLEP53 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:57:29 -0500 Received: from ezoffice.mandrakesoft.com ([212.11.15.34]:8377 "EHLO vador.mandrakesoft.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264323AbTLEP52 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:57:28 -0500 To: "Kendall Bennett" Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? X-URL: <3FCF77FF.18046.447204E6@localhost> From: Thierry Vignaud Organization: MandrakeSoft Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:57:27 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FCF77FF.18046.447204E6@localhost> (Kendall Bennett's message of "Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:07:59 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) 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 "Kendall Bennett" writes: > Then again, it appears that most developers are using wrapped to > avoid this situation, such that their private code does not include > any Linux headers, only the GPL'ed wrapper. wrappers are gpl-ed. i do not think they offer so much "work" that their authors have the right to tell "here's there's a boundary; our binary module can legally use our wrapper".