Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261907AbUF1WNv (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:13:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265241AbUF1WNv (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:13:51 -0400 Received: from web11505.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.172.37]:22924 "HELO web11505.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261907AbUF1WNu (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:13:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20040628221349.55700.qmail@web11505.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:13:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Subject: GPL question To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: 943 Lines: 18 Hopefully this is not going to start a huge thread war on open source philosophy and such, but the company I work for has some proprietary code built as a 2.4 linux kernel module for a product they sell. They are concerned about releasing the source code. I noticed that what this code does and how it does it seems pretty clean (at least GPL-wise), but it does modify sys_call_table to add a system call which is then used to call the module from userland. Can they avoid releasing this code or is this crossing into a gray area? I used to think I more or less understood the basics of the GPL, but after talking to their lawyers I am totally confused. Thanks. ===== Jarrett L. Redd (K9HMV) - 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/