lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]
    On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:34:40PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
    > The GPL says you may use the kernel _itself_ but only with certain
    > restrictions.
    >
    > My claim is that the GPL forbids you from loading a non-GPL'd module.
    > Not that if you do so, the non-GPL'd module becomes a derived work, but
    > that in doing do you are violating the licence under which you received
    > the _kernel_ and hence you must immediately cease using the _kernel_.

    Your claim is not, as far as I know, supported by the law or the GPL
    itself.

    GPL v2 section 2:
    "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.
    If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
    Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
    works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply"

    That leaves the question of what "can be reasonably considered independent
    and separate works". I've both heard about other companies researching
    this and I've done it myself. The lawyers came to the same conclusion,
    independently. In software, what constitutes an independent work is
    something which can be pulled out and have another implementation dropped
    in and the rest of the system can't tell the difference.

    A very obvious boundary is user vs kernel, nobody here thinks that because
    some application runs on a GPLed kernel that application is GPLed.
    Some people here may _pretend_ they think that so that they can argue
    that Linus made an "exception" for user land applications but that's
    just self serving posturing and I'm sure those people know that (just
    as I'm sure there will be 50 flaming replies saying that is not at all
    what they think. Politicians are the same everywhere).

    Another boundary is a tarball. If it weren't for the above clause of
    the GPL then anything combined in a tarball with a GPLed work would be
    considered GPLed. Even RMS knew that wouldn't fly.

    A less obvious boundary, and the one that got me into this, is the storage
    of a GPLed source file in a source management system. Does that mean that
    the metadata used to store that file is GPLed? At one point I was worried
    about this (why? Damn good question, in retrospect it is a "don't care",
    I didn't create the metadata so I don't own it anyway so why do I care if
    it is GPLed or not? Whatever, at one point I cared). I spent more than
    a lot of you make in a year in legal fees looking into it and that's where
    I learned about boundaries. The law has pretty clear ideas about boundaries
    and it doesn't matter what you think or I think or the GPL thinks, the
    boundaries are there and the GPL can't cross them. The conclusion of the
    lawyers was that no, putting a GPLed file into an SCM system in no way
    makes the SCM metadata GPLed. BTW, I asked RMS about this and he of course
    refused to accept that, his position is that the metadata would be GPLed,
    nice to see he is consistent :)

    A much more obvious example than the SCM one is a device driver or a module.
    That's so cut and dried it isn't even open to debate in the eyes of the
    law. It's a hard and fast boundary, the GPL can't cross it no matter what
    people think or want (on either side).

    That's why I think that your claim is not supported, by the GPL or
    (far more importantly) the law. While I'm no lawyer I'm perhaps more
    qualified than some people on this list since I've actually spent a pile
    of money researching this. I'm sure that someone with more money could
    buy^H^H^Hpay some lawyers try and make an opposing view stick but I'm
    equally sure that those of you without money don't have an iceballs'
    chance in hell of making an opposing view stick. Talk is cheap, legal
    decisions are expensive.

    Once again, please note that I don't make money off the kernel or any other
    GPLed product (we ship diff & patch with BK but we also provide source for
    all our changes, they aren't substantial nor are they money makers). So I
    have no vested interest in which way this works out. I'm simply passing on
    what I've learned, I'm more or less one of you who has actually spent a lot
    of money getting legal opinions on the topic.
    --
    ---
    Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:3.377 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site