From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264339AbTLFAKD (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:10:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264368AbTLFAKD (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:10:03 -0500 Received: from imladris.demon.co.uk ([193.237.130.41]:28545 "EHLO imladris.demon.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264339AbTLFAIw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:08:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: David Woodhouse To: karim@opersys.com Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3FCED34B.5050309@opersys.com> References: <3FCDE5CA.2543.3E4EE6AA@localhost> <3FCED34B.5050309@opersys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <1070669311.8421.35.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7.dwmw2.1) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:08:31 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dwmw2@infradead.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 01:25 -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > Since the last time this was mentioned, I have been thinking that this > argument can really be read as an invitation to do just what's being > described: first implement a driver/module in a non-Linux OS (this may even > imply requiring that whoever works on the driver/module have NO Linux > experience whatsoever; yes there will always be candidates for this) and then > have this driver/module ported to Linux by Linux-aware developers. So you have a loadable module made of two sections; a GPL'd wrapper layer clearly based on the kernel, and your original driver. The latter is clearly an identifiable section of that compound work which is _not_ derived from Linux and which can reasonably be considered an independent and separate work in itself. The GPL and its terms do not apply to that section when you distribute it as a separate work. But when you distribute the same section as part of a _whole_ which is a work based on the Linux kernel, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of the licence, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. For the precise wording which I've paraphrased above, see ยง2 of the GPL. Note that 'is this a derived work' is only part of the question you should be asking yourself. The GPL makes requirements about the licensing even of works which are _not_ purely derived. Some claim that copyright law does not allow the GPL to do such a thing. That is incorrect. I can write a work and license it to you under _any_ terms I see fit. I can, for example, license it to you _only_ on condition that you agree to release _all_ your future copyrightable work, including works of fiction and other completely unrelated things, under terms I decree. You either do that or you don't have permission to use my work. Whether your own work is derived or not is completely irrelevant; if you don't agree to the terms of _my_ licence, you don't get to use _my_ code. -- dwmw2