Re: [ros-kernel] Possible licensing issues?

[KJK::Hyperion <no...@li...>]

At 19.33 26/04/2002, you wrote:
>Probably the LGPL ((lesser|library) gnu public licence) is more suitable 
>for the 'publicly linkable' libraries, and let everything that is run in 
>kernel-mode be GPL.

ok, but where do you draw the line? device drivers use the kernel and HAL 
as runtime DLLs, what parts of ntoskrnl.exe and hal.dll are public and what 
are private? and what about non-kernel stuff? like the subsystems?