diff is a little diff -- erent

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 10:26 AM Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve at sohara.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 09:57:48 +0300
> Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is NOT a rule in the GPL that  a GPL based operating system is not
> > allowed to run a
> > closed source software  as long as the closed source software does NOT
> use
> > a GPL licensed part .
> >
> > The main point is that requirement .
>
>         Indeed the crux is modifying code released under GPL, if you do
> that then the modifications must be released under GPL even if the
> modifications are much larger than the original code. At least that's my
> understanding but when it matters always consult a specialist lawyer.
>
> --
> Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve at sohara.org>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

You are right .

Please see

"
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.18/process/license-rules.html
Linux kernel licensing rules

The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public
License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as provided in
LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0, with an explicit syscall exception described in
LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note, as described in the COPYING file.

This documentation file provides a description of how each source file
should be annotated to make its license clear and unambiguous. It doesn’t
replace the Kernel’s license.

"

and please notice

"
with an explicit syscall exception described in
LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note
"


The above exception is allowing to run closed source software in the Linux
operating system .

The routines are used ( when a syscall is issued ) by the operating system
, not the issue generated program , even in that case closed source program
is depending on a GPL licensed part . If there is not any exception to the
GPL license usage like the above mentioned , the closed source program
should be open sourced .


For the FreeBSD case :

If there are GPL parts in the base system , no one can use ( FreeBSD
operating system base ) as a part of
any proprietary ( closed source ) system which is not an acceptable
situation for companies attempting to produce a commercial product
depending on FreeBSD base system .

This means it is likely that they will not need to support the FreeBSD
project .
Money is not raining on to commercial companies like water rains .

( I am NOT affiliated into  ANY commercial company or activity . Only it is
necessary to think how they are operating in their environment . )


Mehmet Erol Sanliturk