From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263185AbTLDRG2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:06:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263205AbTLDRG2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:06:28 -0500 Received: from natsmtp01.rzone.de ([81.169.145.166]:31213 "EHLO natsmtp01.rzone.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263185AbTLDRGZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:06:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3FCF696F.4000605@softhome.net> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:05:51 +0100 From: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" Organization: Home Sweet Home User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030927 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Kingsland CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jason Kingsland wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, "Linus Torvalds" wrote: > > >>And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same. >>The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result, >>anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple. >>... >> - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal >> Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around >> with core code, you're derived, no question about it. > > > > If that is the case, why the introduction of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and > MODULE_LICENSE()? > > Specifying explicit boundaries for the module interface has legitimised > binary-only modules. > This was the signal to developers of proprietary code that binary-only > modules are tolerable. > > Note that I said tolerable, not acceptable. Ref also the 'tainted' flag > ("man 8 insmod") > My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules in 2.6 and > beyond. > GPL is about distribution. e.g. NVidia can distribute .o file (with whatever license they have to) and nvidia.{c,h} files (even under GPL license). Then install.sh may do on behalf of user "gcc nvidia.c blob.o -o nvidia.ko". Resulting module are not going to be distributed - it is already at hand of end-user. So no violation of GPL whatsoever. Licensing is least technical issue regarding modules. But sure I would like to have open source drivers - at least then I have chance to clean them up ;-))) my 2 eurocents. -- Ihar 'Philips' Filipau / with best regards from Saarbruecken. -- _ _ _ Because the kernel depends on it existing. "init" |_|*|_| literally _is_ special from a kernel standpoint, |_|_|*| because its' the "reaper of zombies" (and, may I add, |*|*|*| that would be a great name for a rock band). -- Linus Torvalds