From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261891AbTLJNLp (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:11:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262608AbTLJNLp (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:11:45 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:23819 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261891AbTLJNLn (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:11:43 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:06:03 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Jason Kingsland cc: David Schwartz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sorry as the principle author of the taskfile transport for storage. And all points of distribution under stupid anal EC law apply. I will vote NO to enforce such brain dead concepts. See since it is not easy to get all the authors/contributors/surviors to agree to switch to a new/better/license, it takes only one to say NO to stop the process of change. Well here is the one NO, and imposing all modules are GPL is a no can do. Bye have a nice day! Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Kingsland wrote: > > > My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules in 2.6 > and beyond. > > "David Schwartz" wrote: > > I'm baffled how you think this is a choice that can be made. The license > is > > the GPL itself and even the Linux kernel developers have no power to > change it. > > Modules are essentially dynamically linked extensions to the GPL kernel. In > some cases they can be shown to be independent, prior works where GPL can > reasonably be argued not to apply - which as Linus stated earlier on this > thread was the original intention of allowing binary-only modules. > > But in most of the more recent cases the driver/module code is written > specifically for Linux, so it seems more appropriate that they would be > considered as derived works of the kernel. But those various comments from > Linus are being taken out of context to somehow justify permission for the > non-release of source code for binary loadable modules. > > Linux is not pure GPL, it also has the Linus "user program" preamble in > copying.txt - that preamble plus other LKML posts from Linus are commonly > used as justifications for non-disclosure of source code to some classes of > modules. > > But with all due respect, Linus is not the only author of Linux and his > words to tend to convey an artificial sense of authority or justification > for such attitudes. Here is a typical example: > http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9161119242.html > > All I am suggesting is that the preamble could be extended to clearly state > the position for kernel binary-only modules, and that the upcoming 2.6 > release might be an opportunity for a quorum of the Linux authors to agree > to revised wording. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >