Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161477AbWI2HdT (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:33:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161475AbWI2HdT (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:33:19 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:52139 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161476AbWI2HdR (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:33:17 -0400 Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement From: David Woodhouse To: tridge@samba.org Cc: James Bottomley , linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <17692.46192.432673.743783@samba.org> References: <1159498900.3880.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17692.46192.432673.743783@samba.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:32:53 +0100 Message-Id: <1159515173.3309.373.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 (2.6.3-1.fc5.5.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1835 Lines: 38 On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 15:51 +1000, tridge@samba.org wrote: > I actually think they were already in violation with TiVo version 1, > as they were using binary kernel modules. Although it is possible to > have a kernel module which is not a derivative work of the kernel (as > address space and linking concerns are only "rules of thumb", not true > tests for a derivative work), I think that their modules were in fact > pretty clearly derived works. I can say this partly because I have > disassembled a few of them and looked at them in great detail. It's simpler than that. They were in violation even if you don't consider their module to be a derived work, because they distributed it as part of a larger whole which was based on Linux -- and thus the GPL extends to "each and every part regardless of who wrote it." Binary-only modules on their own are extremely dubious, but binary-only modules shipped as _part_ of an embedded product, in conjunction with a Linux kernel, are a clear violation of the licence. "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." -- dwmw2 - 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/