>>817078 (OP)
>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: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>>817211
As Bradley Kuhn wrote[1] it's
<GPLv2 with the syscall exception
but not all files contain that exception.
[1]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2017/oct/20/additional-permissions/
[2]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/COPYING#n2
(pic not related)