[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules
    Zan Lynx wrote:

    >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.
    >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?
    Well, it is ok because the proprietary FS in question does not
    access anything in the IDE layer. The VFS does not reexport
    ide symbols and interfaces. It is not a "workaround" for proprietary
    fs'es - someone who writes proper GPL code cannot simply take a shortcut,
    skip the VFS layer and have his GPL'ed fs drive the IDE layer directly.
    He'd end up with a stupid fs this way, one with artifical limitations such
    as being unable to work on SCSI too, and unable to cooperate
    properly with the VFS.

    If skipping some GPL glue layer is possible, technically convenient,
    better for
    performance but unfortunately illegal, then that is a strong hint that
    the glue layer itself may be an illegal circumvention device. In some
    at least. The VFS however, is not a mere glue layer, it is an important
    subsystem of its own. Sitting between block devices and filesystems
    makes it a middle-man of course, but it is much more than that.

    >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.
    There is another alternative, which is to provide open drivers. The
    money is
    in pushing _hardware_, not drivers! And linux users are more likely to buy
    the hardware device with the open driver, rather than the device with the
    proprietary driver. So this is good for sales too. See the recent thread
    about a open hw graphichs card. Lots of people got interested, because of
    the "no secrets - *fully* documented" approach.
    Nobody really needs to be a "binary vendor".

    Helge Hafting

    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 14:10    [W:0.025 / U:0.796 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site