Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:12:59PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
> > the GPLness, hmm?  Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
> > interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
> 
> The "derivative work" distinction in law, which can be quite complex
> because it involves issues like intent. Other than the intentional clear
> statement that the syscall interface is considered a barrier by the
> authors there is no other statement.

When a copy actually takes place is another matter of law, and whether
an MacOS init which links in and patches MacOS to provide various
enhancements to MacOS, would therefore make Init a derived work of
MacOS is also a matter of law, and may very well vary based on your
the legal jourisdiction that you might happen to be in.  So it's
probably not worth discussing it (or the analogous situation involving
proprietary code dlopen'ing GPL'ed code, or proprietary modules which
use symbols that get linked into a GPL'ed kernel) on the Linux Kernel
mailing list.  To people who want to write proprietary modules and use
GPL'ed symbol exports --- take it up with your lawyer, and maybe
someday we'll have a few test cases and a decision one way or another
so that armchair lawyers don't have to keep discussing it.

It probably is worth saying that the non-legal concerns:

	* lack of cooperation from developers
	* the need to keep up with changing interfaces
	* the fact that the driver can't be included in the mainline kernel
	* refusal by distributions to carry the driver

are probably the more important things for companies that want to use
a proprietary driver model to consider.

						- Ted