On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 02:56 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > 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. Ahem. I have *not* seen FSF make such claims. > 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 >
