Re: [ros-kernel] Possible licensing issues?

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

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

We don't have to draw a line. The dynamic linking of binaries (.exe, .dll,
.sys files) is entirely irrelevant to the license discussion. The only
important fact is that we cannot exclude third-party developers from
building non-GPL'd binaries (applications, drivers, dlls) for ReactOS. So we
have to make sure they can build these binaries without having to GPL their
'property'.

Now what do you need to build a binary? You need header files, import
libraries and perhaps some documentation. So these must not be GPL'd.
Personally I don't care if they are LGPL'd or in the public domain.
Everything else is MS FUD.

According to the great Craig Mundie, William Henry Gates III (aka Bill) must
be GPL'd as soon as someone runs a GPL'd program on an MS Windows Operating
System. In this case everyone was allowed to clone Billy-Boy. But actually I
don't think anyone would want to do that. ;-)


Eric