Re: Kernel module ethics.

[Richard Thrapp <rthrapp@sbcglobal.net>]

On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 18:51, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:23:41PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > So, enter the compromise. Make your proprietary stuff in separate file(s)
> > known only to your company. This keeps them trade secret. Compile them
> > into a library. Provide that library with your module. The functions
> > contained within that library should be documented as well as the
> > calling parameters (a header file). This helps GPL maintainers
> > determine if your library is broken.
> 
> Brilliant, this violates section 2b from the GPLv2. If that's OK with
> you, see a lawyer first.

Hasn't it been said (by people in control) that binary only modules are
okay to link into the kernel, or do I remember incorrectly?  How is this
different from a binary only module?  Release an open-source component
under a BSD license, or even a commercial license if you like, along
with a closed source component.  Link the two together, and finally
insmod your non-GPL amalgamation into the kernel.

Anyway, you're not distributing your kernel with your module linked in,
so you're not distributing a derivative of a GPLed program, so by my
understanding section 2b doesn't apply.  Comments?

-- 
Richard Thrapp