Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264331AbTICXeC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:34:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264314AbTICXeC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:34:02 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:55257 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264331AbTICXdr (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:33:47 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Pascal Schmidt" Cc: Subject: RE: Driver Model Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 16:33:44 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4479 Lines: 107 > 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 In that case, there is more than likely nothing that prevents you from doing whatever you want. > > 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. Probably so. > > 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? b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. In other words, if you want to distribute the Linux kernel, you must license it under the terms of the GPL. You may not impose additional restrictions because if you do, you're not causing it to be distribute under the terms of "this License". So if I download the Linux kernel from somewhere, someone distributed it to me. Hence, if they complied with the GPL, I am under only the obligations imposed by 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. It does cover use. Specifically, it permits unrestriced use. If you received GPL'd code, you have the unrestricted right to use it. That's what section 2b says. > 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). Non-issue. I'm talking about your rights to *use* 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. You must not be reading the same GPL I am. Can you please cite to me the section that requires derived works to be placed under the GPL. I can't find it. > 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. ;) But that's not what it does. It prevents you from using the kernel in certain ways. The GPL does not permit such usage restrictions. It also restricts your ability to create and use derived works. The GPL similarly does not permit such restrictions. The only restrictions the GPL allows a distributed derived work to contain are those specifically imposed by the GPL, and those restrictions only kick in at distribution. If there were distribution restrictions, you'd have an argument. But we are talking about use restrictions. > 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. You only have that right (in the United States) if the GPL_ONLY stuff is *not* a copyright enforcement scheme. > 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? Fine, so long as we all agree that the GPL_ONLY stuff is not a copyright or license enforcement scheme and that evading or modifying it is not evading a copyright/license enforcement scheme. In this case, you cannot argue that the DMCA prohibits claiming a GPL license for purposes of compatability. DS - 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/