Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264519AbTIDBzm (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:55:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264527AbTIDBy2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:54:28 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:11792 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264519AbTIDBww (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:52:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:37:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: Pascal Schmidt cc: David Schwartz , 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 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2864 Lines: 79 Pascal, SUPER HIGH FIVE! You have made the obvious clear, and most will not even follow or listen. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Pascal Schmidt wrote: > 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/ > - 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/