From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264436AbTLGPK2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:10:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264437AbTLGPK2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:10:28 -0500 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:13696 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264436AbTLGPK1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:10:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:15:46 GMT From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200312071515.hB7FFkQH000866@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Many network drivers in the current 2.6 tree include the following licensing condition/clarification, in addition to being placed under the GPL: "This file is not a complete program and may only be used when the entire operating system is licensed under the GPL". as grep -C 1 "only be used when" in drivers/net will confirm. *Please*, can we resist the temptation to 'play' with licenses in this way? I suspect this extra clause was added just to clarify what the GPL already says, but in doing so, it just confuses matters, and ends up causing more work. For example, it brings up a few issues: 1. How is 'operating system' supposed to be defined in this context? I assume that if it meant just the kernel, it would say 'kernel'. If you define 'operating system' as including some userspace utilities, it's going to cause problems, as some common utilities are not GPL'ed, (the extra clause doesn't say 'GPL-compatible', it specifically specifies GPL). 2. Is code licensed under this extra term actually compatible with code placed under the GPL alone? 3. I haven't tried to trace the history of this code, but if these drivers were based on, and include, other developer's purely GPL'ed code, applying this extra condition is presumably not valid, (unless specific permission was sought to do so). 4. The obvious issue concerning binary modules - does loading a binary module which is not licensed under the GPL invalidate your license to use these network drivers? Note that I personally have no interest whatsoever in using such binary modules, but whatever ends up being decided for the GPL'ed parts of the kernel, this extra clause suggests to me that it specifically isn't OK whilst using these network drivers. John.