Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:42:44 +0100 | From | Martin von Loewis <> | Subject | Re: OFFTOPIC: binary modules, bad idea! |
| |
Richard Jones wrote: > Konrad Rosenbaum wrote: > > > > GPL and Library GPL do _not_ say that you have to write under GPL if you > > USE the library, only if you modify it!
Well, the GPL says exactly that. Or more correctly, it says that you must provide source when you use it *and distribute it*.
Clause 0 says that translation is considered a form of modification, and clause 2 states that you have to write under GPL if you want to distribute your modifications. Well, clause 5 says you don't have to accept the license, but then you cannot modify the Program.
> > Including it via #include, using it via ldso or linking it into your code > > is _not_ modification - it's simply usage - modification would be if you > > change the source files of the library and then you're free to distribute > > you changed library free and the project that uses it non-free (you just > > have to say that they are different projects)..... > > How does this apply to kernel modules?
One could argue that a kernel binary module is a modification of parts of the kernel source, in particular the header files (which contain a significant number of inline functions), as well as potentially parts of lib.a. In turn, a binary module is derivative work (unless a non-GPL duplicate of the header files was use to produce it).
There is a minimal chance that such a violation of the GPL is ever prosecuted. This would need to come from the Linux copyright holders. Linus has stated that binary-only modules are fine with him.
I personally like the situation as it is: distributors of binary-only modules can feel safe, but hopefully, they feel guilty as well.
Regards, Martin
P.S. Just in case: this is not legal advice, and I'm happy not to be a lawyer.
| |