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
