Messages in this thread | | | From | Jim Nance <> | Subject | Must modules be GPL'ed? (fwd) | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 1996 07:27:32 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
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
| |