Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261224AbVC0RlY (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:41:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261233AbVC0RlY (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:41:24 -0500 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.73]:41410 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261224AbVC0RlH (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:41:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1111913399.6297.28.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <1111886147.1495.3.camel@localhost> <490243b66dc7c3f592df7a7d0769dcb7@mac.com> <1111913399.6297.28.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <16d78e9ea33380a1f1ad90c454fb6e1d@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Aaron Gyes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!. Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:40:47 -0500 To: Arjan van de Ven X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2995 Lines: 86 On Mar 27, 2005, at 03:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> I think that at the moment the general consensus is that it is ok to >> use >> the Linux kernel APIs (but not the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL ones) from binary >> modules _if_ _and_ _only_ _if_ the driver was originally written >> elsewhere >> and ported to the Linux kernel. > > I disagree there. Only a few copyright holders of the kernel suggested > that "previously written elsewhere" would be an exception. I haven't, > Alan Cox has been very vocal about that he hasn't. I've not seen my > employer say that it would make that exception either. > > And it's a gray area. > Is it ok if you have 5000 lines from another OS and 0 specific/modified > for linux (the technical impossibility of this aside) > Is 4990/10 still good? > is 4900/100 still good ? > is 4500/500 still good ? > is 4000/1000 still good ? > is 2500/2500 still good ? > is 2000/3000 still good ? > is 500/4500 still good ? > > if anyone thinks this is a loophole their lawyers better have an answer > for this... > > (and note that I'm not claiming that those 4500 lines are a derived > work > when used elsewhere. But I do consider it a derived work if it's in a > binary form where it does include linux specific code, and even code > from the linux kernel via say inlines). NOTE: I *strongly* discourage binary drivers. They're crap and frustrate poor PowerPC users like me. Since this is purely a theoretical discussion, and I want to discourage binary crud, this email is Copyrighted: This email is Copyright (C) 2005 Kyle Moffett. The remainder of this email is available under the GNU General Public License, version 2. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt for details. THE BELOW MAY NOT BE USED IN A BINARY DRIVER, SO DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT! Ok, so what if the _driver_ provides an API like this: int start_driver(void); int stop_driver(void); void register_alloc(void *(*alloc)(unsigned long)); void register_free(void (*free)(void *)); [... more register functions here, generic functionality ...] And a BSD licensed bit of glue based on that interface that connects the driver to a dozen different OSen by wrapping or using their interfaces directly. Do you think _that's_ legal? As far as I can see, even that level is iffy, but it's a murky issue, and I doubt it will be decided one way or another until people test it in various courts. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$ L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ - 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/