[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
    On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, "Linus Torvalds" wrote:

    > And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same.
    > The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result,
    > anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple.
    > ...
    > - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
    > Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around
    > with core code, you're derived, no question about it.

    If that is the case, why the introduction of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and

    Specifying explicit boundaries for the module interface has legitimised
    binary-only modules.
    This was the signal to developers of proprietary code that binary-only
    modules are tolerable.

    Note that I said tolerable, not acceptable. Ref also the 'tainted' flag
    ("man 8 insmod")
    My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules in 2.6 and

    The Kevin Dankwardt article gives an alternative perspective for Linux
    embedded use:
    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 13:59    [W:0.020 / U:41.456 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site