From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753458AbYI1Rvj (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:51:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751833AbYI1Rvb (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:51:31 -0400 Received: from 166-70-238-42.ip.xmission.com ([166.70.238.42]:33698 "EHLO ns1.wolfmountaingroup.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751718AbYI1Rva (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:51:30 -0400 Message-ID: <33521.166.70.238.43.1222622153.squirrel@webmail.wolfmountaingroup.com> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:15:53 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [REQUEST] Clarification from Copyright Holders on FUSE/NDISWRAPPER From: jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I have been involved in numerous discussions with a variety of folks, including Bruce Perens regarding the new policy governing kernel drivers created for specific hardware/features and the Linux Foundations position on proprietary hardware drives. I have attempted to contact the FSF and discuss this with them and they have refused to respond to letters or return telephone calls to discuss this topic (I do not believe this is the result of malice on their part or some conspiracy -- I think its just too complex a question for them to address at the present time). The consensus opinion from Bruce and others seems to be that applications that use normal system services on Linux do not appear to be involved in GPL related issues. Additionally, there seems to be agreement that end users (i.e. consumers) who are the targeted end point of distribution are not under any GPL restraints provided they are not involved in distribution. In other words, someone who downloads Linux then downloads a custom binary driver and combines the two pieces for their own use is not constrained by the GPL since if it did place constraints on consumer use, it would violate the Latham Act and other anti-trust laws since it would be targeting consumers with restrictive covenants and price fixing. THE QUESTION I have carefully examined FUSE and file system drivers and this appears to meet the definition of user space derived applications also unconcerned with the GPL. I need to know if this is the understanding of the actual copyright holders of Linux regarding FUSE or if FUSE is considered a user space application or if it is considered a part of the kernel. Our analysis indicates separately distributed binary drivers are not concerned with the GPL provided they are not distributed with Linux or derived from it (I have a hard time understanding how a driver written for a kernel OS cannot be considered "derived" from Linux, but apparently it is not provided it uses none of the Linux code or includes -- ndiswrapper is a great example of this). At present, I compile file system drivers as Windows executables (*.sys) and I load them with a modified version of ndiswrapper if I need to use them in Linux. I would like to move to FUSE for several customers who wish to use Linux. I would appreciate whomever owns the File System area to let me know their view of this before I start moving the code over to FUSE. My analysis to date indicates that drivers compiled on Windows and loaded on Linux on an ndiswrapper-like PE Loader shim that maps the VFS to an external binary driver interface does not violate the GPL, particularly since the end customers are actually the folks who install it on Linux and they do not distribute it. I apologize in advance for asking this question here since I have attempted to talk to Bruce and others about it, and the FSF has gone deaf, dumb, and silent and won't address it -- probably because without the input of the copyright holders they have no answer. Best Regard, Jeff