Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:31:25 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@vger.timpanogas.org>
To: Stephen Samuel <samuel@bcgreen.com>
Cc: "Shipman, Jeffrey E" <jeshipm@sandia.gov>,
       inux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPL module question
Message-ID: <20020619103125.A6759@vger.timpanogas.org>
References: <03781128C7B74B4DBC27C55859C9D73809840643@es06snlnt> <3D10AF67.20204@bcgreen.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <3D10AF67.20204@bcgreen.com>; from samuel@bcgreen.com on Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 09:20:55AM -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4917
Lines: 119


Unless you lift someone's code "whole cloth" and use it, there 
is no obligation to GPL any of your module code.  Just make certain
you stick to exported functions in /proc/ksyms.  If you add functions,
and export anything declared "static" in the kernel, then you may 
have a requirement to GPL any code that touches these areas.

There are folks who will as Richard says "complain" about this 
but in the real world, people need to make money off Linux and 
it's in everyone's interest for folks to have some elements they
can use to eek out a living so Linux can keep it's momentum 
going.  Of late, things have been floundering in terms of 
direction and Linux is starting to fall into the same rut 
I have seen NetWare and W2K in for the past few years.

The more folks who can build stable businesses around Linux the 
better off we all are, GPL and non-GPL folks alike.  

Make certain if you modify any kernel code to make your module 
work you post those changes back to this list so the maintainers
can accept or reject your patches.  If you do this you will be 
squeaky clean and if you have some success it will help Linux 
in the long run.  

However, be advised that if what you are doing is really cool some 
of the more enterprising folks may create GPL enhancements of 
what you have created.   

:-)

Jeff

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 09:20:55AM -0700, Stephen Samuel wrote:
> I think that this one depends on where/how you're
> using and distributing the module. (I remember
> hearing that special dispensation was given for
> drivers but I can't really comment).
> 
> The biggest question is whether or not you're distributing
> copies of Linux, or other drivers. If you're not making
> copies of other people's GPL code, then you don't have to
> distribute the source to your code to your driver. This
> is because the GPL really only kicks in when you
> redistribute GPL code .. not when you distribute your own.
> 
> Where not distributing source code may bite you, however
> is getting OS distribution makers (e.g. RedHat, SuSe,
> Debian) to include copies of your drivers with their
> distribution. It is at best borderline, and at worst
> illegal to do so. If you've read the GPL, you'll notice
> that breaching the GPL code means that you COMPLETELY
> LOSE the ability to redistribute The GPL code.
> 
> For a company/group for whom their entire reason for
> being is the distribution of Linux, losing the right
> to do so is a pretty high risk to take for a simple
> driver.
> 
> --------
> --------
> For a longer answer: If you are intending to try and
> distribute GPL code alongside your own non-open code,
> I'd trongly suggest that you hand the whole question
> off to a set of high-paid lawyers. You'll be putting
> your business model into the  middle of a legal mine
> field (presuming you don't start *on top* of a mine).
> Under those conditions, putting your business into the
> hands of the legal opinion of a bunch of programmers
> would be *stupid*.
> 
> On the other hand, if you GPL your code, then you'll
> be fine.  If your business is selling hardware, then
> there's little real loss in making the code available
> and lots of advantages (like making it FAR more likely
> that Linux distributions will include your drivers).
> 
> 
> Shipman, Jeffrey E wrote:
> > I hope this is not off-topic. If it is, please point
> > me in the right direction.
> > 
> > I'm currently writing a Linux Kernel module. Does
> > this have to be under the GPL because it uses kernel
> > routines? I really don't know of a way around
> > using kernel routines because that's whatcha gotta
> > do inside the kernel. :)
> > 
> > Hopefully this won't be an issue (it's not classified
> > material or anything). I'm still waiting for my
> > manager to get back to me on it.
> > 
> > Jeff Shipman - CCD
> > Sandia National Laboratories
> > (505) 844-1158 / MS-1372
> > 
> > -
> > 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/
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stephen Samuel +1(604)876-0426                samuel@bcgreen.com
> 		   http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel/
> Powerful committed communication, reaching through fear, uncertainty and
> doubt to touch the jewel within each person and bring it to life.
> 
> -
> 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/
-
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/