lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRE: Driver Model

    Pascal,

    SUPER HIGH FIVE!

    You have made the obvious clear, and most will not even follow or listen.

    Cheers,

    Andre Hedrick
    LAD Storage Consulting Group

    On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Pascal Schmidt wrote:

    > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
    >
    > > If the GPL_ONLY stuff is a license enforcement scheme, the DMCA
    > > prohibits you from removing it.
    >
    > -ENOTUSCITIZEN
    >
    > > If the GPL_ONLY stuff is not a license enforcement scheme, nothing
    > > prohibits you from stamping your module GPL when it's not.
    >
    > I'd say its up to the lawyers and judges to find out whether having
    > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") in a module means anything legally. It might
    > mean "I promise this module is made from GPL source", but it might
    > also mean nothing.
    >
    > > However, the GPL (section 2b) prohibits you from imposing any
    > > restrictions other than those in the GPL itself.
    >
    > Section 2b) in the file COPYING in the root dir of the kernel source
    > does not talk about restrictions. Are we talking about the same version
    > of the GPL?
    >
    > > The GPL contains no restrictions that
    > > apply to mere use and the GPL_ONLY stuff affects use, so it can't be a
    > > license restriction, hence there is no restriction to enforce.
    >
    > The GPL doesn't even cover use of the "product". It covers modification
    > and redistribution.
    >
    > Well, it is still an open question whether kernel modules are derived
    > works or not, especially since we don't have a stable kernel ABI and
    > therefore modules have to use part of the kernel source (headers) and
    > module writers have to study kernel code to write their modules (since
    > there is no official complete documentation about functions in the
    > kernel).
    >
    > If modules are derived works, then legally, following the GPL, they
    > must be GPL too and GPL_ONLY is no problem but pointless.
    >
    > Seems to me you could say GPL_ONLY is a way of the developer saying
    > "I consider your stuff to be a derived work if you use this symbol".
    > Ask a lawyer whether that's their decision to make. ;)
    >
    > Apart from that, I fail to see how it is an addition restriction
    > when you still have the right to remove all the GPL_ONLY stuff. After
    > all, the kernel is GPLed work, so you have the right to remove
    > things and distribute the result. How is it a real restriction when
    > the license allows you to remove it?
    >
    > --
    > Ciao,
    > Pascal
    >
    > -
    > 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/
    >

    -
    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 13:48    [W:0.026 / U:1.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site