From: "Roy Murphy" <murphy@panix.com>
Reply-To: murphy@panix.com
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:03:56 -0500
Subject: Re: MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
Message-id: <3bd05cfc.6bb9.0@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

'Twas brillig when Taral scrobe:
>You're quite right. Module insertion is linking. And distributing a 
>kernel with binary-only modules already inserted would be a GPL 
>violation. What modules do is let people do the link at the last stage 
>-- the end user. The GPL does not restrict what end-users do with your 
>code if it doesn't involve redistribution. 

The point was made earlier that a module might include some code expanded from
a macro in a kernel header file.  Producers of binary 
modules could adopt a "clean room" approach (as the first cloners of 
the IBM PC BIOS did) and have one group write a technical specification 
for any necessary kernel headers and have a second group implement 
substitute headers from the specification.

>I also think this is somewhat ridiculous. If I (the binary module 
>maker) distribute a program which effectively replicates the 
>functionality of insmod without the licence checking, and distribute 
>that program with my module, am I violating any restrictions? I don't 
>think so, since it's the end-user that ends up linking the kernel to 
>the module. No linked products are actually distributed... 

In the US it may be a violation of the DCMA prohibition on 
circumvention of "effective access controls" (and perhaps violations of 
corresponding laws in some European countries).  Though that's a whole 
'nother huge legal morass.
 
-
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/