Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Axel Weiß <> | | Subject | Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel | | Date | Sat, 8 May 2004 12:24:49 +0200 |
Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2004 10:03 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > > Would it be possible to let e.g. LPGL-licenced kernel-modules be loaded > > legally? > > there are 2 angles here: > 1) there already is "GPL with additional rights" which LGPL is just one > form of
Ok, I didn'd see it before - thx.
> and > 2) if you mix LGPL with GPL (eg kernel), the LGPL license itself says it > autoconverts to GPL, so you can't even have a LGPL module *loaded*. > (Not saying that your source can't be LGPL but when you link it into the > kernel at runtime it turns GPL)
What does this actually mean (I'm no lawyer and somehow confused about it)? As I understand, GPL sais: 'every piece of code that relies on me, must be GPL'ed and therefore be available as source code', while LGPL sais: 'you may develop proprietary software that relies on me, but if you change me, your changes must be available as source code'.
I want to permit proprietary extensions *in user-space* for my open-source-project, that contains some device-drivers for DSP-cards, and partly relies on them. Does your second statement mean that as long as there's only source-code, it may be LGPL (and extendable), but if you *use* it (e.g. load the kernel-modules), everything that relies on the modules must be GPL?
(If this is OT, please tell me, and excuse the noise)
Axel - 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/
|  |