Re: [ros-kernel] Possible licensing issues?

[Eric K. <ek...@rz...>]

"KJK::Hyperion" <no...@li...> wrote:

> A friend of mine has expressed a doubt about our choice of GPL as license.
> He says that there may be issues about running non-GPL stuff on system
> libraries that are entirely GPL. I somehow thought that GPL applied only
to
> *interfacing* to a library, so only programs and drivers using
> ReactOS-specific functions or the implementation itself would fall under
> the "derivative works" category, but he told me that it isn't so, and
> suggested we ask the FSF for a definitive reply

The current licensing situation is definitely not okay! The main problem is
that the SDK/DDK headers and the import libraries are GPL'd too. This will
have to change. We will have to rerelease the headers and import libraries
and perhaps the .edf and .def files under the LGPL or entirely
non-copyrighted. This does not apply to internal header like
thentoskrnl/include/internal/*.h files. The documentation should be released
under GFDL and the other stuff remains under the GPL or its original
license.

> (personally, I think that the GPL is hysterical and I won't touch it with
a
> ten foot pole if I can choose to, and that this particular case is crazy,
> since basically every single part of ReactOS, down to the kernel, is some
> sort of DLL)

The current problem is not about dynamic linking to DLLs at runtime but
static linking of GPL'd import libraries to potentially non-GPL'd code.

> I'm surprised that this issue hasn't been addressed before, but maybe I
> don't remember, or I wasn't subscribed yet to the mailing lists. Comments?

I addressed this as part of the 'grand cleanup' some time ago. IIRC, the new
makefiles, the DK directory and the separated build of import libraries were
the result.


Eric