Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:36:22 -0700 (PDT) | From | Alex Belits <> | Subject | Re: Legal Issues with UDI ( was Re: [Fwd: Uniform Driver Interface (UDI)] ) |
| |
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Terry L Ridder wrote:
> While the previous comments below deal with the technical issues of > performance of UDI drivers, this comment deals mainly with the > Licensing Issues. > > 1. Can you mix a GNU GPL'ed OS ( Linux & Hurd ) with non-GNU GPL'ed > drivers?
Linux is already "non-GNU" as "not originated or maintained by GNU/FSF", and the whole point of GPL is to allow all kinds of combinations of GPL'ed source despite of its origins.
> 2. Can you mix a GNU GPL'ed OS ( Linux & Hurd ) with proprietary > drivers, > for which you do not have the source code, and there is not even a > glimmer of hope that you would ever have the source code?
Only if they use interface that IIRC in the case of Linux kernel modules falls under LGPL (ex: Open Sound System by 4Front).
> > 3. Can you mix a GNU GPL'ed OS ( Linux & Hurd ) with proprietary > drivers, > for which you do have the source code, but the source code is not > released under the GNU GPL?
Same as above, you can't distribute non-GPL'ed patch to GPL'ed code or non-GPL'ed code, based on GPL'ed code, or any binaries based on such combination, however you can distribute non-GPL'ed program that links with LGPL'ed one or uses dome kind of interface with GPL'ed one.
> 4. Assuming that all Linux UDI drivers are GNU GPL'ed, can a proprietary > OS > (SCO, Solaris, HP-UX) use those same drivers? (This could lead us > down the > same path that Apache has followed were the currency of trade is > source code. > i.e. Yes we will work with you, but we want some of your source code > hacks.)
Only if separation of code under different licenses will be clear at the moment of program execution for GPL or linking for LGPL (whatever that means for kernel modules now) and compliant with licenses. If I understand this correctly, non-(L)GPL'ed kernel can have interface to (L)GPL'ed drivers layer, however the implementation of that interface should not involve placing (L)GPL'ed code inside non-(L)GPL'ed one. Once there is a way to link or load separate (L)GPL'ed layer or interface, there should be no problems with using it. Issue with linking vs. execution in the case of kernel module seems to be rather foggy though.
Another problem is dependency of (L)GPL'ed code on non-(L)GPL'ed one. GPL'ed code should not require proprietaty code to be usable, unless such proprietary code is normally distributed with the system. That "normally" at least in one case (GPL'ed KDE that depends on commercial Qt widgets library) caused a huge flamewar, not unlike "MSIE is a part of the OS", so I don't recommend to base anything on this.
> 5. Would driver authors be willing to release their drivers under > multiple > different licenses?
I believe, it was done before, however it may be near to impossible to do that with existing drivers if they contain code, contributed by large number of people.
> 6. If the UDI drivers are only available in a binary format, would this > not > violate a primary premise that freeware/OpenSource implies. > Premise: Only trust software you have the source code for. > Implied Premise: Never trust software you do not have the source code > for.
It's considered that dependence on non-open-source software is a minor annoyance when applies to particular case (driver for particular non-vital device, say, sound card), but a disaster if applies to the system as a whole (say, all disk or console drivers available for the system must include non-free component in order to make bootable system).
-- Alex
P.S.: 1. I am not a lawyer. 2. I am not rms.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |