On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 02:51:02AM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote: > > It's my understanding that hurd for example doesn't have this kind of > exception (and I suspect never will, given the project's foundation), so > we'll never even see apache for it (the damned BSDish advertising clause > strikes again!) what? since when does apache have code patched into the kernel? or are you saying that if the kernel is GPLed any program that is executed in an environment run by that kernel must also be GPL? (ie becomes a derivitive work of the kernel) that just does not make any sense to me and if it were true then why bother putting glibc under the LGPL? now if Hurd supported what linux calls kernel modules (i don't know many technical details of the Hurd but it does not sound like there is really such a thing with a microkernel) and the Hurd lacks the exception Linux has for allowing binary kernel modules then yes a binary kernel module would not be allowed. but we are not talking about kernel modules we are talking about userland utilities/daemons (apache) -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpZYRXr8FjBP.pgp
Description: PGP signature