From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261993AbTEFWS4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:18:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262019AbTEFWS4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:18:56 -0400 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:11392 "EHLO mail.jlokier.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261993AbTEFWSy (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:18:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:31:27 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Alan Cox Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Using GPL'd Linux drivers with non-GPL, binary-only kernel Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1052250792.1983.160.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > > What if this new-fangled other kernel is open source, but BSD license > > instead? Would that also anger the kernel developers? (As I suspect > > a closed-source binary kernel would, even if one could get away with it). > > Then the combined result would be a GPL'd product. You can do that now. > Add BSD code to GPL and the result comes out GPL. I disagree - as Pavel said, "if it's running in your kernel's userspace", the GPL applies only to the thing running in that "userspace", not to the whole combined machine. > > Then, you can (a) rewrite everything, using the knowledge you gained > > from reading the various open source drivers, or (b) just use those > > drivers, and save a lot of effort. > > The GPL says "you can use them if your final new result is GPL", the BSD > world says "Hey go do it, just say thanks". Its probably a lot simpler > to use the FreeBSD code if you don't want a GPL result. 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. > For myself I'd be willing to discuss relicensing code in some cases but > there is little that has a single author. Thanks. -- Jamie