This message generated a parse failure. Raw output follows here. Please use 'back' to navigate. From devnull@lkml.org Fri May 17 11:51:49 2024 Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:10:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750856AbWDKQH5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:07:57 -0400 Received: from odyssey.analogic.com ([204.178.40.5]:3332 "EHLO odyssey.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750848AbWDKQH4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:07:56 -0400 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([10.112.50.11]) by phoenix.analogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:07:54 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Received: from chaos.analogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chaos.analogic.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3BG7sPd029726; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:07:54 -0400 Received: (from linux-os@localhost) by chaos.analogic.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id k3BG7nb4029725; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:07:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20060411154944.65714.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2006 16:07:54.0911 (UTC) FILETIME=[17906AF0:01C65D82] content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: GPL issues Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:07:49 -0400 Message-Id: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GPL issues Thread-Index: AcZdgheZCqDoMyeLQgS368S3Kdgz0Q== References: <20060411154944.65714.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" To: "Ramakanth Gunuganti" Cc: "Kyle Moffett" , Reply-To: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Ramakanth Gunuganti wrote: > > Thanks for the replies, talking to a lawyer seems to > be too stringent a requirement to even evaluate Linux. > Who would be the ultimate authority to give definitive > answers to these questions? > > Since it's the Linux kernel that's under GPLv2, any > work done here should be released under GPLv2. That > part seems to be clear, however any product would > include other things that could be proprietary. If > Linux kernel is made part of this proprietary package, > how does the distribution work. Can we just claim that > part of the package is under GPL and only release the > source code for the kernel portions. > [See bottom. Please do not top-post.] > -Ram > > --- Kyle Moffett wrote: > >> On Apr 11, 2006, at 02:31:27, Ramakanth Gunuganti >> wrote: >>> I am trying to understand the GPL boundaries for >> Linux, any >>> clarification provided on the following issues >> below would be great: >>> [...] >>> Anyone trying to build a new application to work >> on Linux must have >>> these issues clarified, if you can share your >> experiences that >>> would be great too. >> >> If you're planning to make money off of any code >> developed based in >> part off of the Linux Kernel, you should definitely >> contact a lawyer >> familiar with the linux kernel and ask them. Any >> advice you get from >> this list should probably come prefixed with >> "IANAL", and as such >> isn't worth terribly much. >> >> Cheers, >> Kyle Moffett >> >> > Nobody can produce a definitive answer because nobody knows what you are doing. You could be making a module that exposes the entire contents of the kernel to user-space, then writing user-space programs that manipulate the kernel. Such user-space programs are then derived works and would need a GPL License. On the other hand, you could be making a Hexagrid-confuser(tm) that runs a Pyrosynchrogem(tm), both proprietary items your company manufactures for the Red Sox. You need to make a kernel driver to interface with it, plus a whole bunch of proprietary user-mode software to help the Red Sox win another world series. In this case, only the driver needs to be GPL as long as it doesn't extend or modify the established Unix/Linux API. BUT, you imply that you need to modify the kernel in addition to writing a driver. This means that you are extending the API, which just __might__ require that any code that interfaces with that extension be GPL as well. That's why you __need__ a lawyer if you are going to change the kernel to run your code. Easiest way out is to make a conventional driver to interface with your device. Then write proprietary code that interfaces with it. Do not make any kernel changes, and do publish your driver under a GPL license. For non-US readers, the Red Sox are a baseball team. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.15.4 on an i686 machine (5589.42 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction, book release in April. _  **************************************************************** The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. - 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/