On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM, M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Birrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: The API for this library is deliberately different to the GPL'd
: libdwarf to avoid licensing problems.
What licensing problems does
Peter Wemm wrote:
The next point is that the Linux folks (including Linus) seem to
consider that making calls to the linux kernel causes your driver to
be a derivative, unless the API you're calling has been blessed as a
public interface. (To be fair, I can see the point for their specific
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM, M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: John Birrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : The API for this library is deliberately different
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce M. Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Peter Wemm wrote:
: The next point is that the Linux folks (including Linus) seem to
: consider that making calls to the linux kernel causes your driver to
: be a derivative, unless the API you're calling has
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 09:38:28AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
Back to this case. There are non-GPL implementations of libdwarf out
there. I think the API is well and truly fair game at this point.
In fact SGI's first libdwarf library release was under a BSDL. So if API
in the release is the
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Birrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: The API for this library is deliberately different to the GPL'd
: libdwarf to avoid licensing problems.
What licensing problems does it avoid? APIs can't be copyrighted, and
therefore can't be GPL'd.
Warner
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 09:11:10PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Birrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: The API for this library is deliberately different to the GPL'd
: libdwarf to avoid licensing problems.
What licensing problems does it
