[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Forking and relicensing issues (different)

On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 07:21:45PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 06:18:59PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Would that mean that a program that happens to run only under Linux
> > 2.2.x is a modification of Linux and so MUST be GPL'ed?
> No.  Linux is not GPL.  It's GPL + a special exception (or clarification,
> if you will) that linking against the syscalls is considered use and not
> derivation. 
If I recall correctly (and it's somwhat likely that I don't):
1. The linux kernel is quite specificly GPL, with a clarification that
   system calls are use and not derivation.  It is quite specificly a
   clarification and not an exception nor an additonal term.  (For some
   reason that I do not recall, RMS and Linus (amongst others) had a discussion
   as to this on linux-kernel some time ago.)
2. The BeOS bootloader, which is baised on the Linux bootloader, has been
   a controversy before; for the resolution (IE last thing I heard about
   it), see http://slashdot.org/articles/9804060848213.shtml.  It certianly
   seems to me that this isn't GPL complient.
	-=- James Mastros
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment,
and by then it was too late to say anything at all." 
	-=- Nancy Lebowitz
cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
ICQ: 1293899                   AIM: theorbtwo                  YPager: theorbtwo

Reply to: