Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750865AbXBPLmK (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:42:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751026AbXBPLmJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:42:09 -0500 Received: from tmailer.gwdg.de ([134.76.10.23]:38331 "EHLO tmailer.gwdg.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750865AbXBPLmI (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:42:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:41:41 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Jon K Hellan cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers In-Reply-To: <45D57CF5.70503@uninett.no> Message-ID: References: <9b3a62ab0702142115m4ea7d2c0m6869eb64ef3ee14e@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702142116n4069e16cl1bc8f546f41d935@mail.gmail.com> <20070215061149.GE15654@redhat.com> <9b3a62ab0702142227j19386132s870a0e745cfbb8d1@mail.gmail.com> <20070215165339.GB5285@thunk.org> <9b3a62ab0702151020k5bd0e4c9w763e1b01288ccc4f@mail.gmail.com> <653402b90702151102n3a3e0435r837e2191de79b2b@mail.gmail.com> <7b69d1470702151712x685f3e0eqf6198f9bb7f2394e@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702152148p57db8b1dgd42b1c6fb15dccbb@mail.gmail.com> <1171617170.5835.101.camel@frg-rhel40-em64t-03> <45D57CF5.70503@uninett.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Report: Content analysis: 0.0 points, 6.0 required _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1380 Lines: 32 On Feb 16 2007 10:44, Jon K Hellan wrote: > Xavier Bestel wrote: >> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 21:48 -0800, v j wrote: >> > We only get crap because no one here yet knows how to interpret >> > proprietary modules loaded into the kernel. >> >> The proprietary modules where only a tiny wrapper is linux-specific and >> the rest is cross-platform are in a grey area, yes. >> But your modules, written specifically for linux but distributed as >> binary-only, are specifically what the people choosing the GPL want to >> avoid. They are a derivative work, and are, as such, illegal under the >> GPL. > > If they are a derivative work, they are illegal under the GPL. However, it is > not clear that their being written specifically *for* Linux is sufficient to > make them derivative works *of* Linux. Who knows, perhaps there's a public domain interface that wraps linux kernel function calls into bsd functions, so you can always "successfully" argue the source code is not only for Linux. However, I think that precompiled .ko files are _much more_ tied to Linux (in short, supporting your point) plus a specific architecture. Jan -- - 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/