| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
[Xen-users] Re: Xen and gnu gpl
Mark Williamson wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer ;-)
That is true however it is only the case when the new work is a "derived work"
of the old code. So if I add some extra features for the Linux Kernel, which
is GPL-licensed, I have to distribute my new enhanced kernel under the terms
of the GPL. Typically the patch you produced will be GPL-licensed too since
it will be inspired heavily by the existing code and therefore considered a
"derived work".
On the other hand, userspace apps running *on* the Linux kernel are not *part*
of it and are not typically considered derived works. For this reason you can
write closed-source apps for the Linux kernel (for instance). Many companies
do this and it's generally agreed to be OK. Creating closed-source *drivers*
is more of a grey area.
The main answer is the same as above: XenServer adds management functionality
on top of Xen and some extra drivers but if they are not a *derived work* of
Xen itself then they don't have to be under the GPL. They're just apps that
happen to be running on top of Xen.
A second possible answer, although I think it is less of an issue in this
case, is that if Citrix/XenSource own the copyright on some GPL-licensed code
in Xen they would be within their rights to *also* sell closed-source software
derived from this. I'm not aware of them doing this but it is allowed to do
this with GPL software *if and only if* you are the copyright holder.
Im not an lawyer either but I think this has nothing to do with "derived
work" and/or kernel vs. userspace but rather with the second answer: the
fact that Citrix owns Xen and releases it (kind of) using different
licenses, for a more detailed explanation see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-licensing
Best regards,
Christian
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home