On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 16:15 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 02:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > As it is now, what is a verifiable claim clearly says that Linux is not > > under any sort of modified GPL license. > > I'm a little confused then. With the kernel memory model that > encompasses user space and the FSF claim that everything that > runs in the same memory space is derived, doesn't that make it > impossible to run any non-GPL'd code without a license violation? I have seen FSF making any such claims based on memory space especially regarding the kernel. Again what is derived code in software is not clearly defined by copyright laws in many regions and there isnt sufficient case history to determine one way or the other in a general fashion. In many such cases, the intend of the copyright holders matter more than the claims of the people who wrote the license (in this case the FSF) and that is where Linus note might actually matter. The kernel people have never claimed that user space is derivative of the Linux kernel. That would be stupid. Rahul
