Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Dec 2003 08:39:11 +0100 | From | Stefan Smietanowski <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
Kendall Bennett wrote:
> Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org> wrote: > > >>On Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:50:55PM -0800, Paul Adams wrote: >> >>>Unless actual Linux code is incorporated in a binary >>>distribution >>>in some form, I don't see how you can claim >>>infringement of the >>>copyright on Linux code, at least in the U.S. >> >>A kernel module is useless without a Linux kernel in which it can >>be loaded. Once loaded, it becomes not merely an adjunct, but an >>integrat part of the Linux kernel. Further, it clearly >>"incorporate[s] a portion of the copyrighted work" since it can >>only operate within the context of the kernel by utilizing Linux >>kernel function calls. > > > But what about the case I stated earlier for a driver that is completely > binary portable between different operating systems. Hence the low level > portion of the driver is not Linux specific at all, and in fact not even > designed specifically with Linux in mind. That muddies the waters even > more, and even Linus has said he would believe such a driver to be OK.
You mean kind of like a program being compiled by a compiler?
The program isn't designed for a specific platform/cpu/os/whatnot but when compiled it's specific to a platform/cpu/os/whatnot. With the "program" being the low level stuff and the extra cruft all compilers include being the glue.
// Stefan
- 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/
| |