lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
    Date
    In article <Pine.LNX.4.53.0312031648390.3725@chaos>,
    Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com> 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 <davidsen@tmr.com>
    CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
    Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:4.158 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site