[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]

Re: Inaccurate reporting on GPL

To: linux-india-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Inaccurate reporting on GPL
From: "Binand Raj S." <binand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:15:53 +0530
In-reply-to: <14951.46993.25605.986823@localhost.localdomain>; from raju@linux-delhi.org on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:12:09AM +0530
Mail-followup-to: "Binand Raj S." <binand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-india-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20010118092107.A22385@sharmas.dhs.org> <14951.46993.25605.986823@localhost.localdomain>
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

Raju Mathur forced the electrons to say:
> Where's the violation?  Making a GPL infrastructure to plug commercial
> modules into is perfectly legal, otherwise people wouldn't be able to
> make binary-only drivers/modules for Linux.

Sorry for butting in territory of which I know nothing, but...

Doesn't the GPL require code that links to a GPL'ed library be also GPLed?
Isn't that the reason they came up with the LGPL? Is linking to a GPL'ed
library different from linking to the GPL'ed Linux kernel (as a module)?

Binand

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Inaccurate reporting on GPL
  - From: Raju Mathur

References:
- Inaccurate reporting on GPL
  - From: Arun Sharma
- Inaccurate reporting on GPL
  - From: Raju Mathur

Prev by Subject: Re: Inaccurate reporting on GPL
Next by Subject: Re: Inaccurate reporting on GPL
Previous by thread: Re: Inaccurate reporting on GPL
Next by thread: Re: Inaccurate reporting on GPL
Index(es):
- Subject
- Thread