Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264389AbTICXL3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:11:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264406AbTICXL2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:11:28 -0400 Received: from mail0-96.ewetel.de ([212.6.122.96]:33701 "EHLO mail0.ewetel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264389AbTICXLV (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:11:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 01:11:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Pascal Schmidt To: David Schwartz cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Driver Model In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-CheckCompat: OK Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2301 Lines: 58 On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, David Schwartz wrote: > If the GPL_ONLY stuff is a license enforcement scheme, the DMCA > prohibits you from removing it. -ENOTUSCITIZEN > If the GPL_ONLY stuff is not a license enforcement scheme, nothing > prohibits you from stamping your module GPL when it's not. I'd say its up to the lawyers and judges to find out whether having MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") in a module means anything legally. It might mean "I promise this module is made from GPL source", but it might also mean nothing. > However, the GPL (section 2b) prohibits you from imposing any > restrictions other than those in the GPL itself. Section 2b) in the file COPYING in the root dir of the kernel source does not talk about restrictions. Are we talking about the same version of the GPL? > The GPL contains no restrictions that > apply to mere use and the GPL_ONLY stuff affects use, so it can't be a > license restriction, hence there is no restriction to enforce. The GPL doesn't even cover use of the "product". It covers modification and redistribution. Well, it is still an open question whether kernel modules are derived works or not, especially since we don't have a stable kernel ABI and therefore modules have to use part of the kernel source (headers) and module writers have to study kernel code to write their modules (since there is no official complete documentation about functions in the kernel). If modules are derived works, then legally, following the GPL, they must be GPL too and GPL_ONLY is no problem but pointless. Seems to me you could say GPL_ONLY is a way of the developer saying "I consider your stuff to be a derived work if you use this symbol". Ask a lawyer whether that's their decision to make. ;) Apart from that, I fail to see how it is an addition restriction when you still have the right to remove all the GPL_ONLY stuff. After all, the kernel is GPLed work, so you have the right to remove things and distribute the result. How is it a real restriction when the license allows you to remove it? -- Ciao, Pascal - 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/