From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933293AbYBHD5W (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:57:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758060AbYBHD5M (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:57:12 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:35020 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758798AbYBHD5L (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:57:11 -0500 Message-ID: <47ABD317.5060805@davidnewall.com> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:27:11 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Holtmann CC: 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> <84144f020802030848v160253feoa24c5ecefc7c91f5@mail.gmail.com> <1202240590.15090.119.camel@violet> <47AB0A76.3000404@davidnewall.com> <1202411113.15090.263.camel@violet> In-Reply-To: <1202411113.15090.263.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: > Hi David, > > >>>>> I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way >>>>> it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've >>>>> consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for >>>>> infringement if the copyright holder thinks what you have is derived >>>>> work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes I can, if the proprietary code is not linked with GPL code (and the >>>> proprietary code is original). Loadable modules are not linked. This is a >>>> very clear-cut case. >>>> >>>> >>> that is not clear-cut case. You link at run-time. Otherwise the module >>> would do nothing. >>> >> That's why it's allowed. The module isn't linked when it's distributed, >> and the author doesn't do or cause the linking; the user does. And the >> user never distributes in the linked state. Distribution is key to GPL. >> > > so how do you build this module that is not linked without using the > Linux kernel. You could hand code in assembler, using Microsoft's assembler under Windows. You could compile from C, using GCC on FreeBSD. But that's immaterial. A module which is an original, non-derivative work, is, well, original and non-derivative. Do you say that it must be otherwise? Why would that be?