Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > My recollection is that there is no specific exemption - rather, Linus
> > has said that he believes the syscall layer to be the boundary of
> > derived works.
> The COPYING starts with this:
> 'NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
> of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".'
> Whether you call it an exemption or not is semantics, but it is a
> clear statement from the copyright holder what he wants the license to
That is clear about *a* copyright holder. It is not necessarily true
about all of them. There have been times where Linus's interpretation
was not shared by all: Linus has said he has no objection to
distributing binary firmware blobs in aggregation with the kernel, but
others who contribute to the kernel objected to that practice.