Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:17:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:17:32 -0400 Received: from lilac.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.44]:18904 "EHLO lilac.csi.cam.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:17:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:17:11 +0100 (BST) From: James Sutherland To: David Schwartz cc: Jason Wohlgemuth , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: GPL Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have > > increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that > > modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module > > be released under the GPL? > > If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to > every piece of software that uses the Windows API. In fact, since you call the Windows API by linking against Windows libraries (kernel32.dll etc), Microsoft have as much right to dictate the licensing of Windows apps as the FSF has to require apps linked against GPLed code to be GPLed. (IMO, neither has any such right; of course, given the spate of recent laws we've seen, I wouldn't put any faith in a legal system to reach the "right" decision...) In this particular case - just communicating with GPLed code - the answer is no, you are not required to impose GPL restrictions on your users, you can use a free license instead (or a proprietary one, if you really want...) James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/