In article <94Feb14.170507est.19050@picton.eecg.toronto.edu> David Jones <dej@eecg.toronto.edu> writes:
> 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.

By that logic, so is the kernel. I'm sure Sun/HP/DEC/etc will be rather
upset when the find out FSF is claiming their kernels are GPLed, since
folks have "dynamicly loaded" gcc into them. (assuming that you're
correct and they do take this stance)

> 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.

If this is actually true, it's more reason to avoid GPL code entirely. 
In practice, Berkeley-style licenses seem to really be much more free.

-- 
Ty Sarna                 "As you know, Joel, children have always looked
tsarna@endicor.com        up to cowboys as role models. And vice versa."

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