Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel

["Axel Weiß" <aweiss@informatik.hu-berlin.de>]

Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2004 10:03 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
> > Would it be possible to let e.g. LPGL-licenced kernel-modules be loaded
> > legally?
>
> there are 2 angles here:
> 1) there already is "GPL with additional rights" which LGPL is just one
> form of

Ok, I didn'd see it before - thx.

> and
> 2) if you mix LGPL with GPL (eg kernel), the LGPL license itself says it
> autoconverts to GPL, so you can't even have a LGPL module *loaded*.
> (Not saying that your source can't be LGPL but when you link it into the
> kernel at runtime it turns GPL)

What does this actually mean (I'm no lawyer and somehow confused about it)? As 
I understand, GPL sais: 'every piece of code that relies on me, must be 
GPL'ed and therefore be available as source code', while LGPL sais: 'you may 
develop proprietary software that relies on me, but if you change me, your 
changes must be available as source code'.

I want to permit proprietary extensions *in user-space* for my 
open-source-project, that contains some device-drivers for DSP-cards, and 
partly relies on them. Does your second statement mean that as long as 
there's only source-code, it may be LGPL (and extendable), but if you *use* 
it (e.g. load the kernel-modules), everything that relies on the modules must 
be GPL?

(If this is OT, please tell me, and excuse the noise)

			Axel