From: Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@speakeasy.net>
To: markh@compro.net
Subject: Re: Another kernel releated GPL ?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:24:16 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Erik Mouw <erik@harddisk-recovery.com>, dmarkh@cfl.rr.com,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <4540839C.6010302@cfl.rr.com> <1161872508.12781.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4540CDFE.4000003@compro.net>
In-Reply-To: <4540CDFE.4000003@compro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200610260924.16767.vlobanov@speakeasy.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 834
Lines: 22

On Thursday 26 October 2006 08:02, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > In the usual case it doesn't matter, much stuff is GPL anyway, and for
> > the usual system calls/C library stuff not only is the law probably
> > fairly well established but there is an explicit statement with the
> > kernel that we don't want to claim such rights for a normal system call
> > which would guide a Judge if a case ever came up.
>
> That's sort of what I was in search of. Where is this "explicit statement"
> found BTW.

COPYING file in top-level directory.

> Thanks
> Mark

-- Vadim Lobanov
-
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/