From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264241AbTLERaG (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:30:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264260AbTLERaF (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:30:05 -0500 Received: from bay7-dav52.bay7.hotmail.com ([64.4.10.41]:14350 "EHLO hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264241AbTLER3x (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:29:53 -0500 X-Originating-IP: [24.61.138.213] X-Originating-Email: [jason_kingsland@hotmail.com] From: "Jason Kingsland" To: "Linus Torvalds" , "Kendall Bennett" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:29:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 17:29:52.0464 (UTC) FILETIME=[6439F500:01C3BB55] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus wrote: > There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard > system call interfaces aren't considered derived works If it said "user-space" or "non-kernel address space" in the Linux license then I would agree. But the exact wording is much more vague: "user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls" Any binary loadable kernel module can be considered a "user program" Any interface defined in the kernel header files can be considered a "normal system call" This is why I think further clarification is warranted in future versions of copying.txt - because we are needlessly giving away the source-code freedom that GPL is intended to protect. The proponents of binary-only kernel modules currently use the above as a defense to argue their case for GPL non-compliance.