From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264235AbUEHKYM (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 06:24:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264238AbUEHKYM (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 06:24:12 -0400 Received: from sigma.informatik.hu-berlin.de ([141.20.20.51]:50653 "EHLO sigma.informatik.hu-berlin.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264235AbUEHKYJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 06:24:09 -0400 From: Axel =?utf-8?q?Wei=C3=9F?= Organization: (zu Hause) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 12:24:49 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200405080957.57286.aweiss@informatik.hu-berlin.de> <1084003417.3843.9.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> In-Reply-To: <1084003417.3843.9.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405081224.49890.aweiss@informatik.hu-berlin.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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