From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263537AbTLEBVe (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:21:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263605AbTLEBVe (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:21:34 -0500 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:55988 "EHLO work.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263537AbTLEBVc (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:21:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:21:24 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Erik Andersen , Zwane Mwaikambo , Paul Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Message-ID: <20031205012124.GB15799@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Erik Andersen , Zwane Mwaikambo , Paul Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031204235055.62846.qmail@web21503.mail.yahoo.com> <20031205004653.GA7385@codepoet.org> <20031205010349.GA9745@codepoet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031205010349.GA9745@codepoet.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:03:49PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:58:18PM -0500, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > What about software which utilises Linux specific kernel > > services, such as say some cd writing software? > > An ordinary program that uses normal system calls? > > linux/COPYING says: This copyright does *not* cover user programs > that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely > considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under > the heading of "derived work". Yeah, and the GPL specificly invalidates that statement. We're on thin ice here. Linus is making up the rules, which is cool (since I tend to like his rules) but the reality is that the GPL doesn't allow you to extend the GPL. It's the GPL or nothing. Given the GPL rules you have to disregard Linus' rules that are extensions and work off of standard law. When you get there it becomes an issue of boundaries and the law seems to clearly support Linus' point of view, he didn't need to make that clarification, whether he did or not, that's what is true in the eyes of the law. But given that, neither Linus (nor any of you) get to say "well, that's fine for userland but drivers are derived works". I've said this over and over and I'll say it again. If you want the protection of the law you have to live with the law's rules. You DO NOT get to say "user programs are a boundary across which the GPL does not apply but drivers are a boundary across which the GPL does apply". It doesn't, and can't, work that way. Either userland is GPL and drivers are GPL or neither are GPLed. Take your pick. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm