WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] Re: Xen and gnu gpl

To: Christian Tramnitz <chris.ace@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Re: Xen and gnu gpl
From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:29:54 +0100
Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:04:30 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <gp2pfq$ob1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Christian Tramnitz's message of "Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:02:34 +0100")
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <COL103-W57BA4CD69E653E865B669CABA00@xxxxxxx> <200903090311.42705.mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <gp2pfq$ob1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux)
Christian Tramnitz <chris.ace@xxxxxxx> writes:

> 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

That only works if they own the copyright to ALL the source. As soon
as they add a single GPLed patch to their closed source they must make
it all GPL as the author of the patch holds the copyright of that
change.

> Best regards,
>    Christian

MfG
        Goswin

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>