Måns_Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: > >> > >> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote: > >> > > > >> > > [...] > >> > > > Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, > >> > > > when we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer > >> > > > be able to distribute GPLv2-only compiled executables. > >> > > > >> > > Unless the GPLv2-only work copyright holder(s) add(s) a special > >> > > exception, similar to the one needed to link with the OpenSSL > >> > > library, right? > >> > > > >> > > This scenario is worrying me... :-( > >> > > >> > Is this going to be a problem for the kernel? It is definitely not > >> > going to go to GPLv3. > >> > >> Is the Linux kernel linked with any LGPL'd work? > >> AFAIUI, it is not, so no problem for the kernel. > > > > Doesn't the kernel get its implementations for pow(), sqrt(), > > printf(), and the rest of the C standard library from glibc, which is > > LGPL'd? > > No. The kernel is completely self-contained. Some code may of course > have been borrowed from glibc at some point, but that's irrelevant.
Are you sure that it is self-contained? Grepping through the sources of 2.6.22.1, I do not see an implementation of <stdarg.h> or <stdio.h>. I do see <string.h>, and <math.h> is never included. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
