Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:06:38 +0100 (CET) | From | Marco Colombo <> | Subject | Re: [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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
.TM. -- ____/ ____/ / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |