Subject: Re: GPL'd kernel parts
To: None <Hubert.Feyrer@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/11/1996 14:41:50
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:02:54 +0200
From: Hubert Feyrer <Hubert.Feyrer@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
So again, a GPL'ed kernel-extension is not ok whereas a GPL'ed LKM doing the
same thing is?
Read the f... GPL, and use your common sense.
The GPL requires that every code which is linked with GPL'd code into
a single binary to be placed under GPL, too. This would directly
violate UCB's licensing conditions (and similar conditions from other
universities), which requires us to keep them unchanged. This even
holds if we wouldn't mind making the code unusable for people which do
binary-only distributions (because of, say, special code for own
hardware which they don't want to disclose).
The GPL does not prevent you from dynamically linking GPL'd code with
your binaries, even if your binaries have different licensing
conditions. I asked Richard Stallman about this (I explicitly referred
to share usermode libraries under GPL), and he confirmed my