On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Alan Cox did have cause to say:
> An application is clearly not a derivative work in the general case, and they
> are linked with glibc which is LGPL and gives the users the choice and right
> to run non-free apps.
IANAL, and this may be a dumb question, but what about LGPLing the driver
abstraction layer and/or headers? (Presuming of course there -is- a driver
abstraction layer that would work for 99% of the drivers.) That leaves
the kernel safe (since LGPL says link whatever under whichever license,
GPL is valid for kernel core) and -specifically- allows any license you
like for HW/SW vendors who want to make modules.
--- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 [www.ebb.org/ungeek] GIT/CC/CM/AT d--(-)@ s+:-- a-->? C++++$ ULBS*++++$ P- L+++>+++++ E--- W+++ N+@ o+>$ K? w--->+++++ O- M V-- PS+() PE Y+@ PGP++() t 5--- X-- R tv+@ b++++>$ DI++++ D++(+++) G++ e* h(-)* r++ y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/