From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263108AbTJENiV (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:38:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263109AbTJENiV (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:38:21 -0400 Received: from imladris.demon.co.uk ([193.237.130.41]:25231 "EHLO imladris.demon.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263108AbTJENiS (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:38:18 -0400 From: David Woodhouse To: David Lang Cc: Larry McVoy , Rob Landley , andersen@codepoet.org, "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" , Andre Hedrick , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20030914064144.GA20689@codepoet.org> <20030915055721.GA6556@codepoet.org> <200310041952.09186.rob@landley.net> <20031005010521.GA21138@work.bitmover.com> <1065349414.3157.8.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Message-Id: <1065361053.3157.56.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-2.dwmw2.3) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 14:37:33 +0100 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dwmw2@infradead.org Subject: Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]] Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Version: 3.0+cvs (built Mon Aug 18 15:53:30 BST 2003) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 04:32 -0700, David Lang wrote: > why do people realize how stupid this argument when SCO makes it, but > somehow when it's made on behalf of the GPL it somehow seems sane? The distinction to be drawn here is between that which is allowed for by copyright law, and that which is not. Let us briefly assume, for the sake of argument, that the Linux kernel was released under the Creosote Public Licence, a licence which requires each licensee to perform a daily ritual of bathing in creosote, and to release _all_ future work, even unrelated work, of his own under the same licence. If you don't like the terms of the CPL, you have the option of not using the work in question. If you use the work, however, you are bound by those terms. Let us assume, also merely for the sake of argument, that you can produce a kernel module which is not so closely tied to the kernel that it would be considered a derivative work in copyright law. However, the CPL under which the kernel is released still requires that you release this work under the CPL, even though under copyright law it is not a derivative work. You still have the same choice you had before. You may accept the licence of the Linux kernel, continue to perform your daily bathing in creosote and release your new work under the appropriate licence -- or you may decline the licence of the Linux kernel and refrain from using it at all. If you take the latter option, then you may perform no testing on your binary module, since that would require use of the Linux kernel. You may use the Linux kernel nowhere within your organisation. In this situation, it's not just about your module itself being an infringing copy of a copyright work, but your copy of the Linux kernel _itself_ being an infringing copy. Obviously the GNU General Public License makes no mention of creosote, and its use with the Linux kernel does not require that you license _all_ future work under the GPL. I have made a statement about my opinion of what the licence of the Linux kernel _does_ in fact require. It is my belief that the author of the GNU General Public License is in agreement with me. In particular, in this case, I think the presence of the userspace exception makes it _very_ clear that the meaning of 'derived work' would otherwise have included both userspace and loadable modules. Obviously this is neither true or false until the matter is settled in a court; it's all conjecture. But I think a court will agree with me. > how many people would buy this argument if it was being made about some > function in a piece of hardware? (i.e., if you use this function on this > 802.11 card then your software is obviously a derivitive[sic] of our driver > so we get all the rights to it) I'd buy the _argument_, even if the licence were to require the ritual sacrifice of my first-born child. I wouldn't buy the card in question and use that function though. I have that choice. If I _did_ choose to use the function in question, I would not then whinge that it's not fair when they come for my first-born. That was the agreement I entered into, after all. -- dwmw2