From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423360AbXBPGpV (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:45:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423359AbXBPGpV (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:45:21 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]:5687 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423351AbXBPGpT (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:45:19 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dmA0/OfLuphyN5lOYQvThci917QvPESMO36hRUK7/Ic9tLGUJWOC4r795b6NB3ZJ++Q6EF63jngd6gvRgAAYTReCtOjA68gnTPctsg62wib3IPO8AJveSgQGKLd+BzR/ImpjEpfXFo/OnfncOTYIDmpNQ19TY83Dj2GtskYQelY= Message-ID: <3d57814d0702152245q19e19141me0b999fb051ac7b6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:45:15 +1000 From: "Trent Waddington" To: "v j" Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Cc: "David Lang" , "Scott Preece" , "Miguel Ojeda" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <9b3a62ab0702152225m3893318by95cb8b260c74bfc2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9b3a62ab0702142115m4ea7d2c0m6869eb64ef3ee14e@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702142227j19386132s870a0e745cfbb8d1@mail.gmail.com> <20070215165339.GB5285@thunk.org> <9b3a62ab0702151020k5bd0e4c9w763e1b01288ccc4f@mail.gmail.com> <653402b90702151102n3a3e0435r837e2191de79b2b@mail.gmail.com> <7b69d1470702151712x685f3e0eqf6198f9bb7f2394e@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702152148p57db8b1dgd42b1c6fb15dccbb@mail.gmail.com> <3d57814d0702152157n461a9f0cta0a0c20e9a592d83@mail.gmail.com> <9b3a62ab0702152225m3893318by95cb8b260c74bfc2@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/16/07, v j wrote: > > It's written in black and white, in the license. > > Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in > the Kernel. It doesn't. It does, however, say you can't distribute your module unless you make it available under the same terms as the kernel. It makes that really clear. I'll say that again, for everyone else who is reading this: the GPL makes it really clear that extensions to a GPL work are required to be distributed under the terms of the GPL. All this junk about "derivative works" is just the legal jargon used to implement the intent of the GPL. You can argue that a particular extension isn't a derivative work if you want, but you can't argue with the intent.. cause it is written in plain english. > I know his opinion. I don't debate his opinion. It is his code. I > choose not to use his code because of the license issue. That's good. > No, just that the trend is disturbing. If enough Kernel Developers > choose to write their Software in a way that prevents others from > using it freely, then that is troubling. Especially when these Kernel > Developers are substituting existing interfaces in the Kernel with > ones that are NEW and require specific licenses. It's hardly a new trend.. the kernel has always been GPL.. the intent has always been that all extensions that are distributed be distributed under the GPL. This whole EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL thing is new.. but it doesn't require your module to be under the GPL to load, it requires that your module export a license declaration that claims it is GPL - you can do that without changing your license. Frankly, I don't understand why you're willing to ignore the intent of the GPL but you don't appear to be willing to just make your module export a license declaration of "GPL". Trent