From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262017AbTEFWYF (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:24:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262018AbTEFWYF (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:24:05 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:1411 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262017AbTEFWYD (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:24:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel From: Alan Cox To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20030506223127.GD6284@mail.jlokier.co.uk> References: <20030506164252.GA5125@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <1052242508.1201.43.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030506185433.GA6023@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <1052250792.1983.160.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030506223127.GD6284@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1052257086.1201.179.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 06 May 2003 22:38:08 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Maw, 2003-05-06 at 23:31, Jamie Lokier wrote: > I understand the licensing in unambiguous causes, and I'm not trying > to find loopholes in awkward corners. I'm just observing that, as > closed-source binary modules are de facto accepted (with some funky > rules about which interfaces they can use), the same in reverse > _ought_ to be accepted to the same degree: Linux (and other) GPL'd > modules as satellites around a non-GPL kernel. Actually at least two contributors of note disagree in the general case about binary modules - except when the legal test holds that they are not a derivative work. You'll find Linus comments boil down to much that as well - the EXPORT_SYMBOL stuff is merely guidance.