module-licences / tainting the kernel

module-licences / tainting the kernel

[Axel Weiss]

Hi all,

from my point of view, the 'tainting-rule' for kernel-modules is too 
restrictive, allowing GPL-only modules to not be marked as tainting the 
kernel.

Would it be possible to let e.g. LPGL-licenced kernel-modules be loaded 
legally?

I do not at all want to hide my source code in any way, but under some 
circumstances, the pure GPL is too restrictive, and would reduce interest in 
open-source projects significantly.

Opinions?

Regards,
			Axel

Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 455 bytes --]


> 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
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)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel

[Måns Rullgård]

Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> writes:

>> 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

What about BSD?  That's open enough for me.

> 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)

That would only make a difference if you have the intention of
distributing /proc/kcore.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se

Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel

[Axel Weiß]

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

Re: module-licences / tainting the kernel

[Michael Buesch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 08 May 2004 12:24, you wrote:
> 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?

You may have a look at Linus' comment in the
COPYING file of the kernel tree.

> 			Axel

- -- 
Regards Michael Buesch  [ http://www.tuxsoft.de.vu ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAnLZ6FGK1OIvVOP4RAjvDAKCiFVDEHWOMtR5i/DwTt8iguA2+BwCfWiOa
B1shQRhLGvSWv1/fgNfQOGo=
=6og7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----