From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264898AbTLKMER (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:04:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264901AbTLKMER (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:04:17 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.86.99.235]:3272 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264898AbTLKMEP (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:04:15 -0500 Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: David Woodhouse To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Hua Zhong , "'Andre Hedrick'" , "'Arjan van de Ven'" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, "'Kendall Bennett'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <00af01c3bf41$2db12770$d43147ab@amer.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <1071144245.5712.577.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8.dwmw2.1) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:04:06 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 09:42 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > There's a reason for those lines at the top of the COPYING file saying > that user space is not covered, and there are literally lawyers who say it > would hold up in a court of law. I'm glad that the lawyers have been specifically asked about that, because the exception seems poorly worded to me. It does _not_ say that user space 'is not covered'; in fact it says only that user space is not considered a derived work. But see ยง2 of the GPL: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Being pedantic about it, the precise wording of the exception does not prevent a user space program from being affected by the above even though it is explicitly _not_ considered to be 'derived work', and though it 'can be reasonably considered [an] independent and separate [work] in [itself]'. If you distribute your user space programs not 'as separate works' but rather 'as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program', then they may be affected. I don't _like_ the idea that user space could be affected, and I hope that the _intent_ of the exception is clear enough to cover the ambiguity. I'm not really sure that's the case though. For example, imagine explaining to a judge the technicalities about user space and kernel space, and the 'separation' between the kernel and the cramfs in the downloadable binary blob which forms the firmware for the Linksys/Cisco wireless routers -- and hence arguing that the user space bits are being distributed 'as separate works', rather than 'as part of a whole...'. What reaction do you think you'd get? I don't think the GPL on the kernel _should_ extend its reach into user space, and I'll allow people to invoke estoppel by publicly stating here and now that I'd never sue for such 'violations' alone. Note the word "alone" in the above sentence. I won't rule out the possibility of including such violations in a case against a vendor shipping binary-only modules, or committing other violations. -- dwmw2