lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectMust modules be GPL'ed? (fwd)
Date
Forwarded message:
> From: Janne Peltonen <jkhp@cc.hut.fi>
> Subject: Must modules be GPL'ed?
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:55:42 +0300 (EET DST)

> I just read the GPL but I am still unsure whether loadable kernel
> modules qualify as work derived from the kernel (FAQ, I know..).

If you want to know for sure, you will have to write a kernel module,
not release source, and get one of the kernel authors to sue you.
Really, Im not kidding. This is the only way you will get a definite
answer, and Im not sure if even that would be valid in more than
one country.

There have been debates about this before. Not too much agreement.
For what its worth, the AFS module and Caldera's netware file system
are distributed as kernel modules w/o source and not too many people
are up in arms. In fact I think Linus made some changes to the kernel
code to accomidate AFS.

It is certainly against the sprit of Linux to not have source to everything.
However, I think most linux developers, given the choice of having
an AFS module w/o source or not having an AFS module at all, would choose
to have the AFS module w/o source. I suspect that many people would
make the opposite choice, but I am only speaking about the attitudes
that I have observed on this mailing list.

As always, these are strickly my opinions.

Jim


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.092 / U:1.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site