Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]

Larry McVoy
2003-10-05T01:05:54Z

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:52:09PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 15 September 2003 00:57, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:17:37AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > > Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org> writes:
> > > >When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed
> > > >source binary only product that runs within the context of the
> > > >Linux kernel is not a derivitive work and therefore not subject
> > > >to the terms of the GPL, per the definition given in the kernel
> > > >COPYING file that grants you your limited rights for copying,
> > > >distribution and modification.
> > >
> > > "Because Linus said so".
> >
> > It does not say "Because Linus said so" in the Linux kernel
> > COPYING file, which is the only official document that grants
> > legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the kernel.
>
> Linus clearly and publicly stated his position on binary only kernel modules
> almost exactly one year ago:

Yeah, but Linus stating his position about a license doesn't mean diddly.
The kernel is licensed under a license, that license is a contract that
people enter into. To the extent that it is enforceable, that license
determines what happens, Linus can't retroactively decide to interpret
the license a different way. The license can't enforce things which
the law doesn't allow. In particular, the law understands a concept of
a boundary. And Linus' comments notwithstanding, modules are a pretty
clear boundary. Even the GPL acks this, it knows that anything which
is clearly separable is not covered.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm