Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:58:03 -0400 | From | Timothy Miller <> | Subject | Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model] |
| |
David Schwartz wrote:
> However, some people seem to be arguing that the GPL_ONLY symbols are in > fact a license enforcement technique. If that's true, then when they > distribute their code, they are putting additional restrictions not in the > GPL on it. That is a GPL violation.
Agreed. GPL_ONLY is not a license restriction. It is a technical issue.
Binary-only modules are inherently untrustworthy (no open code review) and undebuggable. It is therefore of technical merit to restrict both what they can access in the kernel (GPL_ONLY) and limit how much kernel developers should have to tolerate when they're involved.
But beyond this, there are some social issues. If someone finds a way to work around this mechanism, they are breaking things to everyone else's detriment. For a commercial entity to violate the GPL_ONLY barrier is an insult to kernel developers AND to their customers who will have trouble getting problems solved.
So, if a company works around GPL_ONLY, are they violating the GPL license? Probably not. Does that make it OKAY? Probably not.
This is like finding a way to give a user space program access to kernel resources. There are barriers put in place for a REASON because people make mistakes when they write software. If no one did, we wouldn't have any need for memory protection, would we.
- 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/
| |