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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans