Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel

From: Michael Buesch
Date: Sat May 08 2004 - 05:31:25 EST

Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:24, you wrote:
> What does this actually mean (I'm no lawyer and somehow confused about it)? As
> I understand, GPL sais: 'every piece of code that relies on me, must be
> GPL'ed and therefore be available as source code', while LGPL sais: 'you may
> develop proprietary software that relies on me, but if you change me, your
> changes must be available as source code'.
> I want to permit proprietary extensions *in user-space* for my
> open-source-project, that contains some device-drivers for DSP-cards, and
> partly relies on them. Does your second statement mean that as long as
> there's only source-code, it may be LGPL (and extendable), but if you *use*
> it (e.g. load the kernel-modules), everything that relies on the modules must
> be GPL?

You may have a look at Linus' comment in the
COPYING file of the kernel tree.

> Axel

- --
Regards Michael Buesch [ ]

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at