[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI)
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Paul Jakma wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> > Well, then, problem solved.
> >
> :)
> > > afaik linus allows binary modules in most cases.
> >
> > And since an "Advanced Linux Kernel Project" wouldn't be a Linus kernel,
> > what then? Would they have the same discretion as Linus? Would Linus'
> > exception apply to them?
> don't know. you'd have to ask him...
> I actually think Linus has been too loose/vague on modules. The
> official COPYING txt file in the tree contains an exception on linking
> to the kernel using syscalls from linus and the GPL. nothing about
> binary modules, and afaik the only statements he's ever made about
> binary modules were off the cuff on l-k a long time (unless someone
> knows a binary module whose vendor can show a written exception from
> Linus et al).
> The result of all this is that we've had plenty of vendors ignoring
> the GPL as it applies to linux and release binary modules all because
> linus said on a mailling list that he doesn't mind too much. not a
> very strong affirmation of the conditions under which linux is
> licensed.

Well, HW vendors may provide a binary module as a timid attempt to
support Linux. A few have already understood that providing an Open Source
one is far a better attitude: they can *get* support for it from the
kernel community. They end up with a better driver, and they can even
learn something useful for their W98/NT/Sco/whatever drivers, too.
If they don't abuse of it (they are sicerely willing to "provide" something)
it's clearly a winning move.
Other vendors are just scared of the two words "Open Source" so they make
a little first step in releasing a binary only driver, which they are
more used to. I believe that sooner or later they'll realize the advantages
of the Open Source attitude, and they'll make the move.

A binary only file-system module is a completely different matter.
Legally, it may have the same "status" of a binary only driver.
Technically, it's just another module. But it seems to me a much clearer
violation of GPL. If you want to hide the internals of your software,
you're not GPL-compatible (a driver is slightly different in that
a HW company is probably worried about the internals of their HW).

> be nice if the binary module thing could be clarified by the copyright
> holders.

Of course.

> --paulj
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> Please read the FAQ at

____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.033 / U:7.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site