From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750923AbWAIOMg (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:12:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750860AbWAIOMg (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:12:36 -0500 Received: from [81.2.110.250] ([81.2.110.250]:46274 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750820AbWAIOMf (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:12:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Is Sony violating Linux GPL? From: Alan Cox To: Ben Collins Cc: Salvador Fandino , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1136815034.1043.42.camel@grayson> References: <1136815034.1043.42.camel@grayson> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:15:06 +0000 Message-Id: <1136816106.6659.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Llu, 2006-01-09 at 08:57 -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > of device could be developed independently enough of the kernel to not > > be considered a derived work, so is Sony violating the Linux license? > > They are correct. The deal with modules is they don't have to GPL them. There is no such "deal". Whether Sony is violating the license is a matter of interpretation of the boundary lines that in law define a "derived work". Nothing else. Many of the Linux kernel copyright holders (including the FSF) are of opinions that some or indeed all kernel modules are derivative works. There is currently no directly relevant legal test case to assertain this reliably. At the moment the bigger concern however is not legal corner cases but the huge number of vendors directly violating the GPL. Alan