How can GPL not let me link to it?

Yea, I know you didn't, I exaggerated. My bad.

Let me make my own shitty logic:
- A movie is released
- I write a review and tell viewers that at they should skip to 10:10 in the movie if they want to see nudity. (call 0x3F2 OR syscall)
- So that would make my review a derivative work and all my first born are belong to the maker of the film.

I'm investigating the claim that a lawsuit would actually be valid for linking (not static).. junior.

I'm investigating the claim that a lawsuit would actually be valid for linking (not static)
You should actually read the kernel license, detective. That would help with your investigation.

copyright CREEP
implying a viral cure for cancer is bad
WEW LAD!

Instead of pretending to be an 3l33t hax0r lawyer, I'm going to point you in the right direction.

<The Linux kernel is GPLv2
This is what Bradley Kuhn has to say about this[1]:
<By way of example, despite our common shorthand of saying that Linux's license is GPLv2-only, the details are more complicated. Linux's license has a long-standing additional permission regarding syscalls[1]. Specifically, this additional permission states that the copyleft terms "do not cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls". This means that even though GPLv2 is a strong copyleft and seeks to apply to any derivative and/or combined work with Linux under copyright, downstream may license parts of combined works that "use kernel services by normal system calls" under terms other than GPLv2. While some contributors' code in Linux is licenses without this additional permission (such as plain GPLv2-only), most Linux contributors license their copyrights under “GPLv2 with the syscall exception”.

Reading from the COPYING file from the Linux kernel tree[2]
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

You can find moar information from the GNU project here: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

As Bradley Kuhn wrote[1] it's
<GPLv2 with the syscall exception
but not all files contain that exception.

[1]: sfconservancy.org/blog/2017/oct/20/additional-permissions/
[2]: git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/COPYING#n2

(pic not related)

It doesn't "prevent" you from doing anything. That's what a court does if someone with stake in the copyright finds out and then decides to take you to court over a license violation. The license violation only happens if you distribute, and it only happens when you do not provide users a means to get the source code, or allow users to further redistribute the source code or binaries compiled from it.
There is no license violation without redistribution.

Also, there are additional complications with trademarks. Sure, you cannot prevent people from redistrubuting the source code, but you sure as hell can prevent them from using your trademarks.
This tangent is basically the CentOS situation years back with Red Hat Linux. Also, the Firefox/IceCat fork.

You're retarded. is why I said "What".

Thank you! That was very helpful.

The license violation only happens if you distribute
This is was and still is uncertain of. If someone created a proprietary program, that would run on fx. Debian and took advantage of the GPL'ed libraries on that system. Would that be illegal? Fx. ffmpeg on Debian is compiled with --enable-gpl, thus everything ffmpeg is GPL. No one is redistributing the GPL binaries, the user download a proprietary program that use the system libraries.

I know of a handful of GPL programs which circumvent distribution licensing the other way around by moving the act of distribution to the end-user. Fx. Wine (winetricks) with Microsoft Fonts and other programs that use freeware data files.

I talk trash. It doesn't mean I hate you or really think that you are stupid. I don't know anything about you user.

Did you know that software can run on Linux without Libc? Libc is not Linux and Linux does not have any libc!

has FSF ever actually sued anyone?

yes, Cisco. It's on the GPL's Wikipedia page

Nice attempt at trolling, this can no longer be attributed to a reading disability.

Prove me wrong. Linux does not have any libc.

Who said it did? You're retarded.

So no code can run on Linux without libc, that's new.

and all proprietary programs that runs on Linux links to it
But that's wrong you retard. Most of those programs could just as easily be compiled to be binary compatible with a different kernel without any changes.

Nice trolling, appreciate you keep it alive.

This is awesome. I love the logic!

Why can't I use your free, open-source work in my proprietary, closed-source, for-profit product?
Because it's licensed specifically to prevent greedy, selfish fucktards from leeching off of better peoples work.

so then why linux allows syscall exception, to allow proprietary software to be allowed to run on linux and be sold?
why doesn't linux outlaw proprietary software on linux? they are leeching off people who made linux. their software runs on linux and makes profit because of that

Because that's what they decided to do. Go shit in your hat.

nicoleposter has moved to Holla Forums
The cancer is metastasizing.