From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755950AbYBGNpb (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:45:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751133AbYBGNpS (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:45:18 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:34846 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750826AbYBGNpQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:45:16 -0500 Message-ID: <47AB0B67.7060103@davidnewall.com> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:15:11 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Holtmann CC: 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 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> <1202241819.15090.133.camel@violet> In-Reply-To: <1202241819.15090.133.camel@violet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Marcel Holtmann wrote: >>> if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking >>> the GPL. >>> >> Completely wrong. However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then it >> would need to be licensed under GPL. This means that a driver can be >> written and distributed as a module under any licence, proprietary or >> otherwise, presumably with the restriction that it may NOT be built-in. >> > > how to do you wanna write a new original Linux driver (modular or > built-in) without creating derivative work. >>From what does it derive? Given a new, original work, created from scratch, could you point to another work, better yet show lines of code in common? >>> You driver was meant to be >>> running as Linux kernel module and thus it is derivative work. >>> >> 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 is such a nonsense. Stop distributing FUD and start talking to a > lawyer. You are clearly under some weird impression what the GPL means > and what it implies. > It's nonsense, it's a reasonable reading of the GPL. What I am doing is telling you what the GPL says, not what you wish it said. > If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and > with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that > license or don't use this symbol at all. > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is not a licence. Only a licence is a licence. > If you use that symbol inside non-GPL (meaning you link at runtime) then > you are in violation of the GPL license. We can't make it much clearer. > Your desire is clear, but the facts are bound to disappoint you.