> There could EVEN be an alternate solution to this problem! NetBSD knows
> about loadable kernel modules (LKM). Implementing this filesystem as an LKM
> file system, there wouldn't be a fixed link between the kernel and the
> object files. Both, the kernel and the object files of the filesystem would
> be distributable seperately. That way, I think, the filesystem code could
> remain GPLd without making the kernel itself GPL. Well, I'm no laywer...

Although no precedent has been set, the FSF takes a dim view of anyone using
techniques such as this to "work around" the GPL.  The FSF considers pretty
well ALL dynamic link libraries to be equivalent to statically linked libs.

This means that using a dynamic loading technique does not exempt you from
the GPL requirements.  And LKM is, after all, a sort of dynamic loader.

Consider this: If I write a library libgpled.a, then does it make sense to
have a statically linked foo forced under the GPL and to have a dynamically
linked foo (a separate binary) not under the GPL?

The best advice I can give is to ask someone at the FSF, by email, about
what you plan to do.  Be specific.  The FSF will not "rule" on general
cases, nor will they rule on gnu.misc.discuss.

-- 
David Jones, M.A.Sc student, Electronics Group (VLSI), University of Toronto
email: dej@eecg.utoronto.ca, finger for more info/PGP public key

------------------------------------------------------------------------------