Re: [Xen-devel] plan 9 status

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No need for LGPL trickery as we are talking about separately licensing
files that contain only our code. We can do that as long as we take no
GPL code that is copyrighted by someone else.

The method you describe below for circumventing the GPL by adding an
'interface barrier' of LGPL code is certainly popular (I could
cite a number of examples). However, I don't believe it is permitted
by the GPL. :-)  Linux permits it for binary-only drivers only because
Linus is prepared to suffer it.

 -- Keir

> I would've thought a (legally) efficient way of doing that would be to have a 
> library-set available under the LGPL, that call the GPL code and are called 
> by the non-GPLed guest OSes.
> 
> I'm not sure about the actual efficiency in terms of processor cycles, of 
> such 
> an approach, but if it collocates the lawyers in the dogbox, which is where 
> they should be, instead of breathing down your neck, that should be an 
> acceptable trade.
> 
> Just my $0.02 (and it's very highly inflated of course!)
> 
> Wesley Parish


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel