lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

    Sorry as the principle author of the taskfile transport for storage.
    And all points of distribution under stupid anal EC law apply.

    I will vote NO to enforce such brain dead concepts.

    See since it is not easy to get all the authors/contributors/surviors to
    agree to switch to a new/better/license, it takes only one to say NO to
    stop the process of change.

    Well here is the one NO, and imposing all modules are GPL is a no can do.

    Bye have a nice day!

    Andre Hedrick
    LAD Storage Consulting Group

    On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Kingsland wrote:

    >
    > > My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules in 2.6
    > and beyond.
    >
    > "David Schwartz" wrote:
    > > I'm baffled how you think this is a choice that can be made. The license
    > is
    > > the GPL itself and even the Linux kernel developers have no power to
    > change it.
    >
    > Modules are essentially dynamically linked extensions to the GPL kernel. In
    > some cases they can be shown to be independent, prior works where GPL can
    > reasonably be argued not to apply - which as Linus stated earlier on this
    > thread was the original intention of allowing binary-only modules.
    >
    > But in most of the more recent cases the driver/module code is written
    > specifically for Linux, so it seems more appropriate that they would be
    > considered as derived works of the kernel. But those various comments from
    > Linus are being taken out of context to somehow justify permission for the
    > non-release of source code for binary loadable modules.
    >
    > Linux is not pure GPL, it also has the Linus "user program" preamble in
    > copying.txt - that preamble plus other LKML posts from Linus are commonly
    > used as justifications for non-disclosure of source code to some classes of
    > modules.
    >
    > But with all due respect, Linus is not the only author of Linux and his
    > words to tend to convey an artificial sense of authority or justification
    > for such attitudes. Here is a typical example:
    > http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9161119242.html
    >
    > All I am suggesting is that the preamble could be extended to clearly state
    > the position for kernel binary-only modules, and that the upcoming 2.6
    > release might be an opportunity for a quorum of the Linux authors to agree
    > to revised wording.
    >
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    >

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.023 / U:0.516 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site