Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:18:24 +0200 (MET DST) | | From | Bjorn Wesen <> | | Subject | embedded linux products && GPL && non-GPL'ed stuff |
| |
The issue of commercial products using the linux kernel in an embedded way in relation to GPL has been beaten to death on forums like slashdot etc before. But I'd like to get some clearity on this from the forum that actually owns the copyright to the linux kernel (Linus et. al). I think it's interesting both for us (who make embedded products) and other companies who are already shipping dito's with Linux in them or are planning to.
Scenario:
Joe manufactures and sells a product, lets say a firewall, around an x86 CPU or whatever, and a flash-rom disk containing software. The software consists of the linux-kernel (maybe with some changes), some kernel modules containing drivers for hardware in the box, some applications he got from the net under GPL, and some of his own applications (not based on anything else).
Joe obviously makes his kernel changes public, and any changes in GPL'ed applications he has used.
However that leaves ambiguity regarding the modules, and his own applications.
Lets say that he really cannot make OSS of one of his own applications because he got it for use in his product under a restrictive license. And he cannot make OSS out of one of the kernel modules because he got the driver under a weird license from the guys he bought one of the HW interfaces from, and added some linux wrapping code around it. This is unfortunately a realistic scenario, speaking from own experience.
Is Joe in trouble ? I can't see any real reason for him not to being able to keep his application "secret", since the kernel GPL explicitely doesn't affect applications running on top, and the other GPL'ed applications can't contaminate because they are a "mere aggregation" (just a collection of programs doing what they are intended to do).
As for the driver module, I know that Linus has expressed (with some reluctancy) that drivers that can be considered sufficiently stand-alone works (like Joe's driver) can be released in a binary fashion. HOWEVER, in this case it's not a case of just releasing the driver, Joe is actually shipping it in a product that runs out of the box with it. What is your interpretation of this ?
It is also possible that someone would say that since Joe is actually shipping a complete product with all software together on a flash disk, he needs to make _everything_ OSS. I'd think the "aggregation" clause and Linus exception re. applications would conflict with that interpretation though.
Thanks for any clarifications
Bjorn W
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |