mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "J C" <jclp12@hotmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: help: use of third party kernel modules: license issue?
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 23:57:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Law14-F14xxnSYe4nhr00045290@hotmail.com> (raw)

How does the Linux GPL license apply to third party, binary modules in
a case where our custom core kernel code uses proprietary, third
party, "binary only" module interfaces?

My company is developing a telecoms product using Embedded Linux. We
are modifying core kernel components to implement some of our
product's features. We aren't using kernel modules for our own code --
we know and accept that our source code changes must be made available
under the terms of the Linux license.

Our problem is that we'd like to use a particular network processor
that comes with a closed-source kernel module from the chip
vendor. The kernel module provides a sophisticated set of API
functions for configuring and using the chip. The vendor intends the
kernel module to be used as a "chip driver API", exporting a bunch of
API functions for use by customer code. However, we (the customer)
would like to call those API functions directly from our own core
kernel modifications. The chip vendor, however, expected its customers
to implement their drivers in their own binary only, custom kernel
modules. Are we putting the "binary only" license of the third party
module at risk if we call its functions from our core kernel
modifications?

We can argue that the chip vendor's binary only module is not a
"derived work" of our modifications -- we just use the published API
of the binary module.

I've seen several statements saying that it is specifically not
allowed to make open-source core kernel changes in order to use a
proprietary, closed-source kernel module. In this particular case, it
might look like this is what we're doing since we call functions of
the binary kernel module from our open-source core kernel
modifications. But we are not making our core kernel code changes in
order to use the proprietary kernel module; we simply want to use the
chip.

Any comments on where we stand on this?

Thanks

JC

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. 
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess


             reply	other threads:[~2003-06-06 23:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-06-06 23:57 J C [this message]
2003-06-07  0:53 ` Alan Cox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Law14-F14xxnSYe4nhr00045290@hotmail.com \
    --to=jclp12@hotmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®