Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Kernel module ethics. | From | Richard Thrapp <> | Date | 27 Feb 2002 21:59:46 -0600 |
| |
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 18:51, Erik Mouw wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:23:41PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > So, enter the compromise. Make your proprietary stuff in separate file(s) > > known only to your company. This keeps them trade secret. Compile them > > into a library. Provide that library with your module. The functions > > contained within that library should be documented as well as the > > calling parameters (a header file). This helps GPL maintainers > > determine if your library is broken. > > Brilliant, this violates section 2b from the GPLv2. If that's OK with > you, see a lawyer first.
Hasn't it been said (by people in control) that binary only modules are okay to link into the kernel, or do I remember incorrectly? How is this different from a binary only module? Release an open-source component under a BSD license, or even a commercial license if you like, along with a closed source component. Link the two together, and finally insmod your non-GPL amalgamation into the kernel.
Anyway, you're not distributing your kernel with your module linked in, so you're not distributing a derivative of a GPLed program, so by my understanding section 2b doesn't apply. Comments?
-- Richard Thrapp
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |