From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262803AbTJJNjY (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:39:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262804AbTJJNjY (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:39:24 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.86.99.235]:41415 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262803AbTJJNjW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:39:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations From: David Woodhouse Reply-To: dwmw2@infradead.org To: Florian Schirmer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Turner , andrew@mikl.as, rob@nocat.net In-Reply-To: <023501c38f32$2b83caa0$9602010a@jingle> References: <1064859766.20847.33983.camel@banks> <1065428944.22491.169.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <01f301c38f2f$b1a7e0b0$9602010a@jingle> <1065791790.24015.238.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <023501c38f32$2b83caa0$9602010a@jingle> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <1065793144.24015.274.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-2.dwmw2.3) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:39:04 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dwmw2@infradead.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Pentafluge-Mail-From: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 15:26 +0200, Florian Schirmer wrote: > The ethernet and wireless driver where never linked into the kernel. > So it should be okay if they only distribute the module. That is true, according to the GPL, _only_ if the modules are distributed as separate works. If they are part of a collective work which is based on the kernel (note, not a _derived_ work but a _collective_ work) then they must be released under the terms of the GPL. This is a _different_ issue to the question of whether a module is indeed a derived work, and it's _far_ more clear-cut. Ask yourself the following questions: 1. The wireless and Ethernet driver modules are distributed within a cramfs file system in a flash image on a chip soldered to the board of the device. Are they being distributed 'as separate works'? 2. The fundamental mode of operation of these devices is to receive network packets from one of the drivers, pass them through the Linux kernel routing or bridging code, and then back out through another of the network interfaces. All three parts of this are indispensable and the product is useless without any one part. A) Does this form a whole which is a derived work based on the Linux kernel? B) Does this form a whole which is a collective work? C) Is this collective work based, in part, on the Linux kernel? 3. Refer back to the facts in question 1. Is this 'mere aggregation of a work not based on the [kernel] on a volume of a storage or distribution medium'? Now, having answered those questions, reread the final three paragraphs of ยง2 of the GPL. -- dwmw2