Matthew Saltzman wrote:
released under the LGPL? at least to allow the the mixing and sharing
of code that is restricted by the real GPL.
Almost certainly not. The kernel is a prime example of the challenges
involved in getting the cooperation that Alexandre refers to. All
authors would have to agree. There are probably thousands of them and
at least some of them are GPL zealots who would never agree to such
terms.
On the other hand, Linus was once widely quoted as saying that loadable
binary driver modules were not derivative works of the kernel - and I
believe that the initial popularity of depended on that interpretation
just as much as the wide use of glibc depends on it not claiming
programs that use it as derivatives. He has waffled on that position
more recently but there is no clear statement or legal precedent.
Personally I think it is very close to the claims SCO makes about jfs -
if a kernel component is a derivative of the kernel where it was
developed then things developed under other unix versions then ported to
linux may really belong to someone else.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
