Messages in this thread | | | From | "Jason Kingsland" <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:21:55 -0500 |
| |
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, "Linus Torvalds" wrote:
> And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same. > The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result, > anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple. > ... > - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal > Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around > with core code, you're derived, no question about it.
If that is the case, why the introduction of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and MODULE_LICENSE()?
Specifying explicit boundaries for the module interface has legitimised binary-only modules. This was the signal to developers of proprietary code that binary-only modules are tolerable.
Note that I said tolerable, not acceptable. Ref also the 'tainted' flag ("man 8 insmod") My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules in 2.6 and beyond.
The Kevin Dankwardt article gives an alternative perspective for Linux embedded use: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT5041108431.html - 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/
| |