Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755880AbYBEMdo (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:33:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752444AbYBEMdf (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:33:35 -0500 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:35034 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752138AbYBEMde (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:33:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:27:41 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: David Newall Cc: Marcel Holtmann , David Newall , Pekka Enberg , Greg KH , Christer Weinigel , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only Message-ID: <20080205122741.24b8a392@core> In-Reply-To: References: <20080125180232.GA4613@kroah.com> <20080202123710.42df1aa0@weinigel.se> <20080202191930.GA19826@kroah.com> <47A5D9CD.5070001@davidnewall.com> <84144f020802030743j1278ac64j2ee3e2cbc5c3fefc@mail.gmail.com> <47A5E67D.9040804@davidnewall.com> <1202058820.15090.60.camel@violet> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1533 Lines: 31 > It is precisely the fact that it is a loadable module, and does not form > part of the kernel, that removes the requirement to distribute it under GPL. That would be your own personal strange opinion. Having actually spent time with lawyers on the subject the question that matters for the GPL is the line between a derivative work and a non-derivative work. The former the GPL covers - the latter it does not. That is totally independent of the technical implementation of the loading and combining of the code. There is even at least one case where the lawyers on both sides of a dispute have concurred that something is derivative because it was closely dependant on a backend that it communicated with by pipes and was useless without that backend and clearly built solely to use it. Mechanism is not important, whether you are doing RPC calls, dynamic linking or static linking isn't part of the creative process. The only exception to the derivative work question is usual system calls. I don't think anyone expects those to create a derivative work anyway but just in case the law gets a bit carried away the COPYING file for the kernel explicitly covers this to ensure there is certainty about running totally seperate proprietary applications on the Linux kernel. Alan -- 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/