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

Re: making a non-GPLed module



Actually it is true. as for the glibc conundrum which has buffled so many
minds - the answer is simple : glibc is licensed under the LGPL (that as in
Library GNU's Public License).

Oded

--
Captain Penny's Law: You can fool all of the people some of the time, and
some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool mom.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Herouth Maoz" <herouth@netvision.net.il>
To: <linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module


> On 2001 November 28 ,Wednesday 11:59, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> >
> > Again, I am no lawyer, but the "official" GNU/FSF standpoint as I
> > understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work
> > (the Linux kernel) means in is considered a "derived work" of the
> > Linux kernel and therefor can only be published under the GPL.
>
> That doesn't sound right to me. Wouldn't it imply that any program
> that you write using gcc (and which links against gnu's standard C
> library, naturally) must therefore be GPL?
>
> As far as I know, that particular interpretation has been denied in
> the past.
>
> Herouth
>
> =================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il
>
>


=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il