From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263580AbTLJOQC (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:16:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263591AbTLJOQB (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:16:01 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:29963 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263580AbTLJOPk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:15:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:09:58 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: David Woodhouse cc: karim@opersys.com, Linus Torvalds , Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: <1070669311.8421.35.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David, How about this ... If you impose EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or impose restrictions on binary only drivers you are forbidden to use my work? Last check 96% of all linux boxes have IDE/ATAPI/SATA in them. Oh yeah that ATAPI stuff is shared with others, but the setup code for the majority of the hba's I own copyright. So the sword cuts two ways. Can we stop with the stupidity? Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 01:25 -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > Since the last time this was mentioned, I have been thinking that this > > argument can really be read as an invitation to do just what's being > > described: first implement a driver/module in a non-Linux OS (this may even > > imply requiring that whoever works on the driver/module have NO Linux > > experience whatsoever; yes there will always be candidates for this) and then > > have this driver/module ported to Linux by Linux-aware developers. > > So you have a loadable module made of two sections; a GPL'd wrapper > layer clearly based on the kernel, and your original driver. The latter > is clearly an identifiable section of that compound work which is _not_ > derived from Linux and which can reasonably be considered an independent > and separate work in itself. > > The GPL and its terms do not apply to that section when you distribute > it as a separate work. > > But when you distribute the same section as part of a _whole_ which is a > work based on the Linux kernel, the distribution of the whole must be on > the terms of the licence, whose permissions for other licensees extend > to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who > wrote it. > > For the precise wording which I've paraphrased above, see ยง2 of the GPL. > > Note that 'is this a derived work' is only part of the question you > should be asking yourself. The GPL makes requirements about the > licensing even of works which are _not_ purely derived. > > Some claim that copyright law does not allow the GPL to do such a thing. > That is incorrect. I can write a work and license it to you under _any_ > terms I see fit. I can, for example, license it to you _only_ on > condition that you agree to release _all_ your future copyrightable > work, including works of fiction and other completely unrelated things, > under terms I decree. > > You either do that or you don't have permission to use my work. Whether > your own work is derived or not is completely irrelevant; if you don't > agree to the terms of _my_ licence, you don't get to use _my_ code. > > -- > dwmw2 > > > - > 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/ >