[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Kernel module ethics.
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 18:51, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:23:41PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > So, enter the compromise. Make your proprietary stuff in separate file(s)
> > known only to your company. This keeps them trade secret. Compile them
> > into a library. Provide that library with your module. The functions
> > contained within that library should be documented as well as the
> > calling parameters (a header file). This helps GPL maintainers
> > determine if your library is broken.
> Brilliant, this violates section 2b from the GPLv2. If that's OK with
> you, see a lawyer first.

Hasn't it been said (by people in control) that binary only modules are
okay to link into the kernel, or do I remember incorrectly? How is this
different from a binary only module? Release an open-source component
under a BSD license, or even a commercial license if you like, along
with a closed source component. Link the two together, and finally
insmod your non-GPL amalgamation into the kernel.

Anyway, you're not distributing your kernel with your module linked in,
so you're not distributing a derivative of a GPLed program, so by my
understanding section 2b doesn't apply. Comments?

Richard Thrapp

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.074 / U:18.880 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site