From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264796AbTLHAuh (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:50:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264902AbTLHAug (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:50:36 -0500 Received: from ppp-168-253-10-94.den1.ip.ricochet.net ([168.253.10.94]:15620 "EHLO mercury.illtel.denver.co.us") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264796AbTLHAu1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:50:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:00:08 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Belits To: John Bradford cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers In-Reply-To: <200312071515.hB7FFkQH000866@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <200312071515.hB7FFkQH000866@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, John Bradford wrote: > 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). I guess, it really means, "kernel as distributed". > 2. Is code licensed under this extra term actually compatible with > code placed under the GPL alone? As I understand it, the statement was only meant to emphasize that the file is a part of a larger work that is licensed under GPL, and its (and derivations') distribution as a separate work is still governed by GPL (in particular, it does not allow incorporation into other products under other licenses) and the authors are unwilling to re-license it under any non-GPL terms. The way how it was expressed is unclear and formally incorrect, but I think, the intent of the statement is merely to re-state the restrictions that are already in GPL and discourage attempts to obtain (or assume) other licenses. > 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. The statement is unclear on this, however if you read "operating system" as "kernel as distributed" and "use" as "distribute" it would make perfect sense. Otherwise it's meaningless. -- Alex