Samba into kernel

[Simo Sorce]

On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 11:03, David Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Urban Widmark wrote:
[...]
> Thanks for the info.  (The whole of GNU, e.g. gcc, gmake, autoconf,
> libtool, etc. depends on this out here in non-GNU-OS-land!) 
> 
> > This is a "special exception" and is not really allowed by the other parts
> > of the GPL. You couldn't distribute (use/compile?) samba for Solaris
> > without this exception because the libc would be mapped into the memory
> > space and added to the program.
> > 
> > The GPL regards the program + the linked libs as one "work".
> 
> Fine.  But that would apply the same in both userspace and kernelspace
> wouldn't it?  Am I missing some subtle distinction here?

I'm not sure it will apply to kernel space.

> > * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
> 
> An interesting, though inconclusive, read.  And there is an explicit
> "exception" mechanism to facilitate a GPL "plug-in" into a non-free
> progam.  (And for us, the main "program" is itself the other allowed
> exception of the OS.)
> 
> > The author can give permission for you to do non-GPL things with the code
> > or relicense things. Problem might be to get ok from all authors and even
> > to identify them and know which ones need to say ok.
> 
> But would we be doing a "non-GPL" thing?  We'd still be within GPL
> wouldn't we?

No, you will be in the boundaries of a modified GPL license and you must
obtain permission of authors of other "classic" GPL code to use that
code under the modified GPL (or anyone would be able to make any kind of
exception to any GPL program).

> Let me re-state the basic idea:
> 
> Current:  Our GPL Samba product currently uses one set of interfaces onto
> the OS and the OS libraries (e.g. Solaris man(2) and man(3)).  This is
> explicitly OK under GPL.
> 
> Proposal:  We adjust our GPL product to allow a site to choose a different
> set of interfaces (e.g. Solaris man(9) DDI/DDK) into that same OS/library
> set.
> 
> In other words, two alternate but equivalent interfaces, onto the same
> non-free, but GPL-permitted, program (OS and libraries). 
> 
> Question:  What, if anything, in the GPL or its FAQ, would force a
> distinction between these intended-equivalent things?   And how?

If there are distinction then it may be that you cannot use them, from
what I know of the GPL your staements seem correct, if DDI/DDK are
published kernel interfaces than there's a possibility you can do it,
but bettere consult fsf to be sure.

> Take a look at the emerging thread on "gnu.misc.discuss".

Have no time :-(
Can you summarize when the discussion prodeuce something interesting?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
----------
Una scelta di liberta': Software Libero.
A choice of freedom: Free Software.
http://www.softwarelibero.it