People who code: we want your input. Take the Survey
6

Yes, they can. Firstly, the kernel is licensed under GPLv2 with a syscall exception, which says that the kernel's "copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work"". So Microsoft could ...


6

Short answer - yes. The kernel is it's own project, and as long as you follow the license terms, you can publish your own modified version without having to publish a whole operating system around it.


6

Most of the binary blobs in Linux are in device drivers, and most of those are in WiFi drivers. Their function is to be the operating code for the hardware on the device; unless they're loaded when the hardware is initialised, the hardware will not function. It is unfortunate that WiFi manufacturers, in particular, have chosen this method of operation; but ...


5

Considering that Canonical has a Silver Membership in the Linux Foundation, I think it's safe to assume the Foundation is aware of its use of the mark in Ubuntu marketing and has either granted tacit or explicit permission for this deviation from their trademark guidelines. As for why the Linux Foundation doesn't just "sue everyone," there are two ...


4

Userspace is fine. According to the syscall exception, regular programs that interface with the kernel "by normal system calls" are not subject to GPLv2 obligations. If your userspace program interfaces with the kernel in a more intimate fashion than "normal" system calls, then this exception might not apply, but the vast majority of ...


4

The GPL only applies to derivative works of the GPL-covered software. In particular: if you modify the covered software, or if you include the covered software (whether in whole or in part) into another software such as by copying code or by linking a library. The GPL does not extend to other programs, even if those other programs communicate with the GPL-...


3

As I interpret the question your plan is that you have your own API and ABI ("shadow linux") with a permissive license. The ABI is then implemented in linux which may be used to insmod kernel modules compiled for "shadow linux". Right? You are right with that, at least in theory. There are no actual violations of the terms, because no GPL ...


2

According to his Wikipedia article, he moved to Open Source Development Labs around June 2003, and when they merged with the Free Standards Group in 2007 to form the Linux Foundation, he became part of the Foundation as a consequence of the merger. In the LF's 2016 tax filing, he's described (on p.8) as a "key employee", with the job title "...


2

The GPL license requires that for the entire project (the Linux kernel in this case) the source code must be available and users must have the right to make changes and redistribute the work with or without changes. If the license on your VPN driver does not give those freedoms, then it might be technically possible to create the driver, but the combination ...


2

The question, as stated, is: Can the Linux kernel be released under GPLv3? Yes, of course. If all the copyright holders involved agree to release the kernel under GPLv3, or any other licence, then they can do so. But the real question seems to be: Can the Linux kernel be used under GPLv3? As the question stated, Wikipedia says “no”. So what about that ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible