Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules | From | Zan Lynx <> | Date | Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:54:02 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > >> > > >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports > > >>symbols to the proprietary modules? > > > > > >Ick, no! > > > > > >Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot of them > > >consider doing this just as forbidden as marking your module > > >MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); when it really isn't. > > > > There will be a GPL'd layer, and it's likely that sysfs interaction will > > be on the GPL'd side anyway, for purely technical reasons. But it does > > feel like circumvention of the limitations set in the kernel. > > It is. And as such, it is not allowed. [snip]
So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
For example, the IDE drivers use GPL symbols but the VFS does not. So anyone can write a proprietary filesystem which eventually gets around to driving the IDE layer. That is okay, but this isn't?
If the trend of making everything _GPL continues, I don't see any choice for binary module vendors but to join together to develop a stable driver API and build it as a GPL/BSD module. Do the same API for BSD systems to prove modules using it are not GPL derived. Watch Greg foam. It'd be fun. -- Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org> [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |