Jan Engelhardt wrote: > <obligatory_ianal_marker> > >>Suppose I use the linux-vrf patch for the kernel that is freely >>available and use the extended setsocket options such as SO_VRF in an >>application, do I have to release my application under GPL since I am >>using a facility in the kernel that a standard linux kernel does not >>provide? >> > > > If vrf has no other uses besides your proprietary application, I'd shudder. So in order for you not to shudder the vrf people have to write a GPL'd program or convince someone else to write one? That sounds .. really odd. Or more to the point, someone ONLY writes kernelmode stuff, doesn't touch userspace at all. A proprietary app shows up that uses it, and all of a sudden this guy's kernelmode whatever is disliked cause noone wrote any GPL'd program for it? That's almost forcing the person who wrote the kernel part to write a GPL'd program JUST because there is a proprietary program using his stuff - and THAT is insane. // Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GPL issues
- From: Martin Mares <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL issues
- References:
- Re: GPL issues
- From: "Pramod Srinivasan" <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL issues
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL issues
- Prev by Date: Re: GPL issues
- Next by Date: Re: [patch] serial: fix UART_BUG_TXEN test
- Previous by thread: Re: GPL issues
- Next by thread: Re: GPL issues
- Index(es):
 |