From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262458AbTLCXvO (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:51:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262491AbTLCXvO (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:51:14 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:48139 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262458AbTLCXvK (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:51:10 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: 3 Dec 2003 23:40:00 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <3FCDE5CA.2543.3E4EE6AA@localhost> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1070494800 21197 192.168.12.62 (3 Dec 2003 23:40:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article , Richard B. Johnson wrote: | On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote: | | > Hi All, | > | > I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux | > Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an | > exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be | > under the GPL. Obviously today there are vendors delivering binary | > modules (not supported by the kernel maintainers of course), so clearly | > people believe this to be true. However I was curious about the wording | > of this exception clause so I went looking for it, but I cannot seem to | > find it. I downloaded the 2.6-test1 kernel source code and looked at the | > COPYING file, but found nothing relating to this (just the note at the | > top from Linus saying user programs are not covered by the GPL). I also | > looked in the README file and nothing was mentioned there either, at | > least from what I could see from a quick read. | > | > So does this exception clause exist or not? If not, how can the binary | > modules be valid for use under Linux if the source is not made available | > under the terms of the GNU GPL? | > | | I'll jump into this fray first stating that it is really great | that the CEO of a company that is producing high-performance graphics | cards and acceleration software is interested in finding out this | information. Really? I guess I'm just suspicious, but when someone who might have an interest in only providing a binary driver asks about the legality of doing that, "great" is not my first thought. | information. It seems that some other companies just hack together some | general-purpose source-code under GPL and then link it with a secret | object file. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the GPL (which is | or was to PUBLISH software in human readable form). Yes, I am a devout fundamentalist paranoid, but I've based my life on the assumptions that I should treat others fairly and expect them to screw me if they could, and both have served me well. I do not mean to cast aspersions on the original poster, about whom I know nothing. There are many companies who have provided full source drivers, and I have rewarded them with my business. I have chosen less performance video over binary module hardware, and would be very happy if there were some guilt-free hardwaree to use. I'm just starting to do video processing, I'd be *really* happy, ecstatic even. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.