lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
    Date
    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
    MODULE_LICENSE()?

    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
    beyond.

    The Kevin Dankwardt article gives an alternative perspective for Linux
    embedded use:
    http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT5041108431.html
    -
    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:0.045 / U:92.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site