Re: [PATCH 2.5.5] do export vmalloc_to_page to modules...

[Tigran Aivazian]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Russell King wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > Namely, in the sense that it is inconsistent with the
> > similar situation in the case of libraries or even system calls.
>
> A GPL library can only be linked with other GPL-compatible code.  A LGPL
> library can be linked with any GPL-compatible or GPL-incompatible code.
> The LGPL has specific clauses in it that allows you to link GPL-incompatible
> code (see LGPL paragraph 5).  It seems that you're missing that distinction.

I wasn't actually missing that distinction and I am familiar with LGPL
reasonably well (had to study it as we do actually make use of it at
VERITAS). I was comparing LGPL with "Linux kernel flavour of GPL" rather
than LGPL with GPL.

>
> This is why glibc and other libraries are LGPL, not GPL.  If glibc was GPL,
> all the binary-only applications in user space would have to supply their
> own C library.
>

Yes, I know.

Regards,
Tigran