Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 07:48:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 07:48:07 -0500 Received: from brooklyn-bridge.emea.veritas.com ([62.172.234.2]:57754 "EHLO einstein.homenet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 07:47:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:46:06 +0100 (BST) From: Tigran Aivazian X-X-Sender: To: Russell King cc: Alan Cox , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.5] do export vmalloc_to_page to modules... In-Reply-To: <20020404134046.H27376@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> 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 Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Russell King wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > > Namely, in the sense that it is inconsistent with the > > similar situation in the case of libraries or even system calls. > > A GPL library can only be linked with other GPL-compatible code. A LGPL > library can be linked with any GPL-compatible or GPL-incompatible code. > The LGPL has specific clauses in it that allows you to link GPL-incompatible > code (see LGPL paragraph 5). It seems that you're missing that distinction. I wasn't actually missing that distinction and I am familiar with LGPL reasonably well (had to study it as we do actually make use of it at VERITAS). I was comparing LGPL with "Linux kernel flavour of GPL" rather than LGPL with GPL. > > This is why glibc and other libraries are LGPL, not GPL. If glibc was GPL, > all the binary-only applications in user space would have to supply their > own C library. > Yes, I know. Regards, Tigran - 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/