From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261825AbTLCVan (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:30:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261891AbTLCVan (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:30:43 -0500 Received: from mail.scitechsoft.com ([63.195.13.67]:61377 "EHLO mail.scitechsoft.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261825AbTLCVad (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:30:33 -0500 From: "Kendall Bennett" Organization: SciTech Software, Inc. To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:31:54 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Message-ID: <3FCDE5CA.2543.3E4EE6AA@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi All, I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be under the GPL. Obviously today there are vendors delivering binary modules (not supported by the kernel maintainers of course), so clearly people believe this to be true. However I was curious about the wording of this exception clause so I went looking for it, but I cannot seem to find it. I downloaded the 2.6-test1 kernel source code and looked at the COPYING file, but found nothing relating to this (just the note at the top from Linus saying user programs are not covered by the GPL). I also looked in the README file and nothing was mentioned there either, at least from what I could see from a quick read. So does this exception clause exist or not? If not, how can the binary modules be valid for use under Linux if the source is not made available under the terms of the GNU GPL? Lastly I noticed that the few source code modules I looked at to see if the exception clause was mentioned there, did not contain the usual GNU GPL preable section at the top of each file. IMHO all files need to have such a notice attached, or they are not under the GNU GPL (just being in a ZIP/tar achive with a COPYING file does not place a file under the GNU GPL). Given all the current legal stuff going on with SCO, I figured every file would have such a header. In fact some of the files I looked at didn't even contain a basic copyright notice!! Regards, --- Kendall Bennett Chief Executive Officer SciTech Software, Inc. Phone: (530) 894 8400 http://www.scitechsoft.com ~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~