Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261611AbVC0Wlp (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:41:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261612AbVC0Wlp (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:41:45 -0500 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.195]:1902 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261611AbVC0Wln (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:41:43 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=RzJ43FAlArF1ZoUhZGUc0gNnxPVq0Y29+Pve/gxn73m28ouZgoTp1peTY+D86EgIEoIiaaKZSSO92lXSS9HBPDsOhvzjGWjFK8zvgXs3DLRQVvyxW5A+5kBRPDKYhMEG7IAiEIQOBgvqrcXXhG22OID0R2kvMeSqYLkRnhlFlJ8= Message-ID: <21d7e99705032714417148217f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:41:43 +1000 From: Dave Airlie Reply-To: Dave Airlie To: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!. Cc: Greg KH , Lee Revell , Mark Fortescue , LKML In-Reply-To: <1111948631.27594.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20050326182828.GA8540@kroah.com> <1111869274.32641.0.camel@mindpipe> <20050327004801.GA610@kroah.com> <1111885480.1312.9.camel@mindpipe> <20050327032059.GA31389@kroah.com> <1111894220.1312.29.camel@mindpipe> <20050327181056.GA14502@kroah.com> <1111948631.27594.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1645 Lines: 33 > > How about the fact that when you load a kernel module, it is linked into > > the main kernel image? The GPL explicitly states what needs to be done > > for code linked in. > > > I've always wondered about dynamically loaded modules (and libraries for > that matter). The standard IANAL, but I've talked to many to try to > understand what is really legal, and I usually come up with the > conclusion, it's just an interpretation of the law by the judge. > > If the user is loading the module (or library) and the distributer > doesn't, then is the the user breaking the license and not the > distributer? I think this is probably what the lawyers are telling the graphics card companies at the moment, the GPL is broken by the act of linking and at what stage is the link considered to have happened, so if I distribute a GPL or BSD licensed stub layer in source form, a big binary blob that doesn't use any kernel interfaces except my stub layer ones, and never distribute any of it with a kernel or linked into anything, am I breaking the GPL on the kernel? all I'm doing is releasing some source code and some binary image files, the user is doing the linking by loading my code into their running kernel and I'm not distributing my code with the kernel... It'll be an interesting day in court... and maybe then derived work will become nicely defined at least for one country.... Dave. - 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/