Messages in this thread | | | From | (bill davidsen) | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | Date | 3 Dec 2003 23:40:00 GMT |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.53.0312031648390.3725@chaos>, Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com> wrote: | On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote: | | > Hi All, | > | > I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux | > Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an | > exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be | > under the GPL. Obviously today there are vendors delivering binary | > modules (not supported by the kernel maintainers of course), so clearly | > people believe this to be true. However I was curious about the wording | > of this exception clause so I went looking for it, but I cannot seem to | > find it. I downloaded the 2.6-test1 kernel source code and looked at the | > COPYING file, but found nothing relating to this (just the note at the | > top from Linus saying user programs are not covered by the GPL). I also | > looked in the README file and nothing was mentioned there either, at | > least from what I could see from a quick read. | > | > So does this exception clause exist or not? If not, how can the binary | > modules be valid for use under Linux if the source is not made available | > under the terms of the GNU GPL? | > | | I'll jump into this fray first stating that it is really great | that the CEO of a company that is producing high-performance graphics | cards and acceleration software is interested in finding out this | information.
Really? I guess I'm just suspicious, but when someone who might have an interest in only providing a binary driver asks about the legality of doing that, "great" is not my first thought.
| information. It seems that some other companies just hack together some | general-purpose source-code under GPL and then link it with a secret | object file. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the GPL (which is | or was to PUBLISH software in human readable form).
Yes, I am a devout fundamentalist paranoid, but I've based my life on the assumptions that I should treat others fairly and expect them to screw me if they could, and both have served me well.
I do not mean to cast aspersions on the original poster, about whom I know nothing. There are many companies who have provided full source drivers, and I have rewarded them with my business. I have chosen less performance video over binary module hardware, and would be very happy if there were some guilt-free hardwaree to use. I'm just starting to do video processing, I'd be *really* happy, ecstatic even. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/
| |