3 ms·

1. the copyright holder used a license that specifically exempts system provided libraries such as libc. User space applications therefore have zero licensing r

1. the copyright holder used a license that specifically exempts system provided libraries such as libc. User space applications therefore have zero licensing requirements imposed on them by using, for example, libc. 2. Yes, a kernel module will have to discover the address of kernel symbols in the kernel. And a user space application will have to discover the address of symbols in the libraries it dynamically links against. But neither the kernel module nor the application cross the OS/user-space boundary. The kernel module is derived from the kernel, and the user space application is derived from the libraries that it uses. But the user space application is not derived from the kernel. 3. Yes, users can do whatever they want. So sure, an enterprising coder could write their own NVidia driver module, have it use GPL symbols from the kernel, and nobody could stop them. What they cannot do is distribute that, and that is what NVidia does.

adrian_b 3y ago
These claims are based on a non-careful reading of the GPL. First, the "System Libraries" exemption also names explicitly the kernel. More importantly, this exemption has nothing to do with determining whether some work is covered by GPL or not. The "System Libraries" exemption allows a GPL program to be distributed together with "System Libraries", without providing the source code for those "System Libraries". The GPL only claims to cover a work that is distributed to others ("conveyed") and which includes a GPL program that is "combined with it such as to form a larger program". The GPL is not applicable to programs that use interfaces provided by a GPL program, but which are distributed independently of it to the end users, for instance kernel modules or shared libraries.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  I've been in the libre software movement for about 30 years, and what you're not really coherently talking about has been thrashed to death for a bit longer than that. You're going to get nowhere trying to claim that a user space application and a kernel module have the same relationship to the kernel. Actually, less than nowhere.

adrian_b 3y ago

These claims are based on a non-careful reading of the GPL. First, the "System Libraries" exemption also names explicitly the kernel. More importantly, this exemption has nothing to do with determining whether some work is covered by GPL or not. The "System Libraries" exemption allows a GPL program to be distributed together with "System Libraries", without providing the source code for those "System Libraries". The GPL only claims to cover a work that is distributed to others ("conveyed") and which includes a GPL program that is "combined with it such as to form a larger program". The GPL is not applicable to programs that use interfaces provided by a GPL program, but which are distributed independently of it to the end users, for instance kernel modules or shared libraries.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
I've been in the libre software movement for about 30 years, and what you're not really coherently talking about has been thrashed to death for a bit longer than that. You're going to get nowhere trying to claim that a user space application and a kernel module have the same relationship to the kernel. Actually, less than nowhere.