From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262366AbTFFXns (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:43:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262368AbTFFXns (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:43:48 -0400 Received: from law14-f14.law14.hotmail.com ([64.4.21.14]:40709 "EHLO hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262366AbTFFXnp (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:43:45 -0400 X-Originating-IP: [212.56.89.216] X-Originating-Email: [jclp12@hotmail.com] From: "J C" 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2003 23:57:19.0596 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D6A4AC0:01C32C87] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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