Controversy over dynamic linking -- how to end the panic
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox did have cause to say:
Quoted 3 lines
An application is clearly not a derivative work in the general case, and they are linked with glibc which is LGPL and gives the users the choice and right to run non-free apps.
IANAL, and this may be a dumb question, but what about LGPLing the driver abstraction layer and/or headers? (Presuming of course there -is- a driver abstraction layer that would work for 99% of the drivers.) That leaves the kernel safe (since LGPL says link whatever under whichever license, GPL is valid for kernel core) and -specifically- allows any license you like for HW/SW vendors who want to make modules.
---
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1 [www.ebb.org/ungeek]
GIT/CC/CM/AT d--(-)@ s+:-- a-->? C++++$ ULBS*++++$ P- L+++>+++++ E--- W+++ N+@ o+>$ K? w--->+++++ O- M V-- PS+() PE Y+@ PGP++() t 5--- X-- R tv+@ b++++>$ DI++++ D++(+++) G++ e* h(-)* r++ y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Quoted 2 lines
IANAL, and this may be a dumb question, but what about LGPLing the driver abstraction layer and/or headers? (Presuming of course there -is- a driver
GPL + LGPL gives you GPL so it doesnt help. You can combine it with the driver or with the kernel but not with both together.