Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Stefan Smietanowski
2003-12-05T07:36:26Z

Kendall Bennett wrote:

> Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:50:55PM -0800, Paul Adams wrote:
>>
>>>Unless actual Linux code is incorporated in a binary
>>>distribution
>>>in some form, I don't see how you can claim
>>>infringement of the
>>>copyright on Linux code, at least in the U.S.
>>
>>A kernel module is useless without a Linux kernel in which it can
>>be loaded. Once loaded, it becomes not merely an adjunct, but an
>>integrat part of the Linux kernel. Further, it clearly
>>"incorporate[s] a portion of the copyrighted work" since it can
>>only operate within the context of the kernel by utilizing Linux
>>kernel function calls.
>
>
> But what about the case I stated earlier for a driver that is completely
> binary portable between different operating systems. Hence the low level
> portion of the driver is not Linux specific at all, and in fact not even
> designed specifically with Linux in mind. That muddies the waters even
> more, and even Linus has said he would believe such a driver to be OK.

You mean kind of like a program being compiled by a compiler?

The program isn't designed for a specific platform/cpu/os/whatnot but
when compiled it's specific to a platform/cpu/os/whatnot. With the
"program" being the low level stuff and the extra cruft all compilers
include being the glue.

// Stefan