Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:49:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:49:36 -0400 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([204.178.40.224]:5248 "EHLO chaos.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:49:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:48:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard B. Johnson" Reply-To: root@chaos.analogic.com To: kumar M cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL issuefor run time kernel function overwrite 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 Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, kumar M wrote: > Hi, > > I have a query regarding the GPL for Linux kernel. > We were having a heated discussion regarding > opening up / disclosing source code for features > added to kernel (as per GPL) if we do the following : > > * We implement a driver which will overwrite any existing > (global kernel data strcuture) function pointer in linux > kernel space run-time. > * No kernel source code is modified in the process. > > regards, > Kumar > Not only is the wording of GPL, but also its intentions important. If the intentions of the GPL are to help promote the free flow of ideas, and to show explicitly how some software is implemented, then any attempt to obscure, disguise or hide the implementation details is contrary to its intent. It is my opinion that any software that is provided without its source-code is contrary to the intent of GPL. However, I'm sure that there are lawyers who will disagree. We already have so-called "proprietary" code being included into the kernel. This started with "harmless" bits of binary which is uploaded into the hardware when some drivers are installed. Including such binary is also contrary to GPL, but without this secret goo, the hardware won't run. This exception to GPL, in my opinion, opened the door to future corruption and exploitation. Time will tell. Now, if your code attacks and destroys, replaces, or otherwise modifies a kernel, I think that's fine as long as the source-code is provided. You can even develop modules that are designed to do harm. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips). I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any. - 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/