Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754471AbXFOL6X (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:58:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752576AbXFOL6P (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:58:15 -0400 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([209.217.80.40]:58382 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751650AbXFOL6O (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:58:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 From: David Woodhouse To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Daniel Hazelton , Alan Cox , Alexandre Oliva , Linus Torvalds , Greg KH , debian developer , david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20070615114921.GC6269@elte.hu> References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <200706131946.15714.dhazelton@enter.net> <20070614021619.381331dc@the-village.bc.nu> <200706132129.52736.dhazelton@enter.net> <1181859896.5211.38.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20070615114921.GC6269@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:57:58 +0100 Message-Id: <1181908678.25228.448.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 (2.10.1-17.fc7.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.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: 1541 Lines: 34 On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 13:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i fully support the notion you articulate, that whether bin-only modules > are part of a derivative work of the kernel or whether they are > independent works is not an automatic thing at all. The answer is: "it > depends, talk to your lawyer". I was actually trying to avoid the question altogether. It's not that interesting, largely because the answer is indeed 'talk to your lawyer'. > For example i'd say VMWare's ESX bin-only module is likely derived > from the Linux kernel and should be distributed under the GPL, but > that for example the ATI and nvidia drivers, although being a large > PITA for all of us, are possibly independent works. And thus not affected by the GPL _if_ they are distributed as separate works in their own right. But if you bundle them with the kernel into a product, the GPL has something to say about that. > but lets note that this is irrelevant to the Tivo argument. Tivo is not > using bin-only modules AFAIK, Right. It was a digression, which I picked up on because people were talking about derived works in the context of modules again, and missing the point that the most _obvious_ GPL violation with modules doesn't actually involve those modules being a derived work at all. -- 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/