Hi,
I have a query regarding the GPL for Linux kernel.
We were having a heated discussion regarding
opening up / disclosing source code for features
added to kernel (as per GPL) if we do the following :
* We implement a driver which will overwrite any existing
(global kernel data strcuture) function pointer in linux
kernel space run-time.
* No kernel source code is modified in the process.
regards,
Kumar
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, kumar M wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a query regarding the GPL for Linux kernel.
> We were having a heated discussion regarding
> opening up / disclosing source code for features
> added to kernel (as per GPL) if we do the following :
>
> * We implement a driver which will overwrite any existing
> (global kernel data strcuture) function pointer in linux
> kernel space run-time.
> * No kernel source code is modified in the process.
>
> regards,
> Kumar
>
Not only is the wording of GPL, but also its intentions important.
If the intentions of the GPL are to help promote the free flow
of ideas, and to show explicitly how some software is implemented,
then any attempt to obscure, disguise or hide the implementation
details is contrary to its intent.
It is my opinion that any software that is provided without its
source-code is contrary to the intent of GPL. However, I'm sure
that there are lawyers who will disagree.
We already have so-called "proprietary" code being included into
the kernel. This started with "harmless" bits of binary which is
uploaded into the hardware when some drivers are installed.
Including such binary is also contrary to GPL, but without this
secret goo, the hardware won't run.
This exception to GPL, in my opinion, opened the door to future
corruption and exploitation. Time will tell.
Now, if your code attacks and destroys, replaces, or otherwise
modifies a kernel, I think that's fine as long as the source-code
is provided. You can even develop modules that are designed to
do harm.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be
attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del
was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 10:48:58AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> We already have so-called "proprietary" code being included into
> the kernel. This started with "harmless" bits of binary which is
> uploaded into the hardware when some drivers are installed.
> Including such binary is also contrary to GPL, but without this
> secret goo, the hardware won't run.
>
> This exception to GPL, in my opinion, opened the door to future
> corruption and exploitation. Time will tell.
Doesn't the copyright-holder of the work have the final decision wether or
not a non-GPL-modification may be inserted? I think the only change that
should be done then is a notice that this and that is non-GPL but permitted
by the copyright-holder...
Ofcourse, If you aren't the copyright-holder of the work (in his totality),
you need to contact the copyright-holder in order to receive (written)
permission...
Just a thought.
--
Sven Vermeulen - Key-ID CDBA2FDB
LUG: http://www.lugwv.be - http://www.keyserver.net