Messages in this thread | | | From | "Jason Kingsland" <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:43:01 -0500 |
| |
> My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules in 2.6 and beyond.
"David Schwartz" wrote: > I'm baffled how you think this is a choice that can be made. The license is > the GPL itself and even the Linux kernel developers have no power to change it.
Modules are essentially dynamically linked extensions to the GPL kernel. In some cases they can be shown to be independent, prior works where GPL can reasonably be argued not to apply - which as Linus stated earlier on this thread was the original intention of allowing binary-only modules.
But in most of the more recent cases the driver/module code is written specifically for Linux, so it seems more appropriate that they would be considered as derived works of the kernel. But those various comments from Linus are being taken out of context to somehow justify permission for the non-release of source code for binary loadable modules.
Linux is not pure GPL, it also has the Linus "user program" preamble in copying.txt - that preamble plus other LKML posts from Linus are commonly used as justifications for non-disclosure of source code to some classes of modules.
But with all due respect, Linus is not the only author of Linux and his words to tend to convey an artificial sense of authority or justification for such attitudes. Here is a typical example: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9161119242.html
All I am suggesting is that the preamble could be extended to clearly state the position for kernel binary-only modules, and that the upcoming 2.6 release might be an opportunity for a quorum of the Linux authors to agree to revised wording.
- 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/
| |