Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262202AbTEHWd3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 18:33:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262189AbTEHWd3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 18:33:29 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.iol.cz ([194.228.2.87]:28300 "EHLO smtp-out2.iol.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262192AbTEHWdF (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2003 18:33:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 23:36:02 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel Message-ID: <20030508213601.GC4466@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20030506164252.GA5125@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <1052242508.1201.43.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030506185433.GA6023@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030506185433.GA6023@mail.jlokier.co.uk> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1721 Lines: 39 Hi! > > > So, as dynamic loading is ok between parts of Linux and binary-only > > > code, that seems to imply we could build a totally different kind of > > > binary-only kernel which was able to make use of all the Linux kernel > > > modules. We could even modularise parts of the kernel which aren't > > > modular now, so that we could take advantage of even more parts of Linux. > > > > You want a legal list - you really do. Its all about derived works and > > thats an area where even some lawyers will only hunt in packs 8) > > Alan, you're right of course - from a legal standpoint. But I'm not > interested in how it pans out in a strict legal interpretation. > > What I'm interested in is how the kernel developers and driver authors > would treat something like that. Binary modules haven't had the full > lawyer treatment AFAIK, but a sort of community viewpoint regarding > what is and is not acceptable, to the community, is fairly clear on > this list. > > So I was wondering what is the community viewpoint when it's the > core kernel that is a non-GPL binary, rather than the modules. > > What if this new-fangled other kernel is open source, but BSD > license If you took vicam driver and made it ran under Windows XP, it would be okay. (It uses defined interface after all). I do not see why vicam driver under "your own os" would be different. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/