Luke Skywalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:47:30 -0800, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their interpretation > of > >the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on an outcome, I'd probably > >wager that the court would hold that only static linking would force > the > >program as a whole to follow the GPL terms. However, I certainly don't > > >have the money to pony up to run a test case. Consequently, I try to > >follow the wishes of the copyright holder. > > It's strange that something so central hasn't been clarified yet, but > maybe it's part of the changes meant for V.3. > > When you think about it, it'd be like banning any closed-source apps > from being developed for Linux, since any application makes syscalls > to the kernel and its libraries. > > But the fact is that there are now closed-source apps for that > platform, and are considered legit since those apps don't include code > from the kernel, but instead, merely make calls to binary objects. I > fail to see the difference between making calls to the kernel API and > making calls to Qt libraries.
The COPYING file for the Linux kernel includes this note: Linux main COPYING: : NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel : services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use : of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". : Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software : Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux : kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. : : Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel : is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not : v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. : : Linus Torvalds Tim C > > Luke. > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
