Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Ihar 'Philips' Filipau
2003-12-04T17:06:28Z

Jason Kingsland wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, "Linus Torvalds" wrote:
>
>
>>And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same.
>>The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result,
>>anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple.
>>...
>> - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
>> Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around
>> with core code, you're derived, no question about it.
>
>
>
> If that is the case, why the introduction of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and
> MODULE_LICENSE()?
>
> Specifying explicit boundaries for the module interface has legitimised
> binary-only modules.
> This was the signal to developers of proprietary code that binary-only
> modules are tolerable.
>
> Note that I said tolerable, not acceptable. Ref also the 'tainted' flag
> ("man 8 insmod")
> My personal view is that Linux should mandate GPL for all modules in 2.6 and
> beyond.
>

GPL is about distribution.

e.g. NVidia can distribute .o file (with whatever license they have
to) and nvidia.{c,h} files (even under GPL license).
Then install.sh may do on behalf of user "gcc nvidia.c blob.o -o
nvidia.ko". Resulting module are not going to be distributed - it is
already at hand of end-user. So no violation of GPL whatsoever.

Licensing is least technical issue regarding modules.
But sure I would like to have open source drivers - at least then I
have chance to clean them up ;-)))

my 2 eurocents.

--
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau / with best regards from Saarbruecken.
-- _ _ _
Because the kernel depends on it existing. "init" |_|*|_|
literally _is_ special from a kernel standpoint, |_|_|*|
because its' the "reaper of zombies" (and, may I add, |*|*|*|
that would be a great name for a rock band).
-- Linus Torvalds