From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932462AbVJ2WH4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:07:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932636AbVJ2WH4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:07:56 -0400 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca ([130.179.16.23]:52964 "EHLO electra.cc.umanitoba.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932465AbVJ2WHz (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:07:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4363F2B5.6090309@cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:07:49 -0500 From: Mark Jenkins User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20051002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Landley CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Is sharpzdc_cs.o not a derivitive work of Linux? References: <43625208.60703@cc.umanitoba.ca> <200510290410.48454.rob@landley.net> In-Reply-To: <200510290410.48454.rob@landley.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rob, It is wonderful that a day will come when most modules will need to use a symbol with attached documentation that says, "if you this symbol, your code will be a derivative work, and by extension you must license it under a GNU GPL compatible license". A cynical person would respond to this and say "if somebody comes along and uses one of those symbols in a proprietary module, the Linux developers will let them get away with it". I hold no such cynicism. I believe the Linux developers would act to enforce their license in such a case. This high regard that I have for the Linux developers is why I'm willing to raise questions about a "binary only" module, despite the fact that it doesn't use any symbols labeled EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Linus makes it clear that one can not conclude that he and others will say such a module is *not* a derivative work. His position was that modules *are* derivative works, unless a strong counter argument is made. (see http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules) Therefor, if the Linux developers are faced with a module like sharpzdc_cs.o, and if they conclude that good evidence is unavailable that it is *not* a derivative work, I believe they would be willing to listen to a complaint that their license of choice is not being followed, and act on that complaint if they felt it was valid. I will reply again later with an attempt to compare the criteria available here: http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules against the behavior of sharpzdc_cs.o and Sharp's distribution behavior. In particular, I would like help with this part of it, "anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal Linux behavior is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around with core code, you're derived, no question about it. " as I am not a Linux hacker. Mark Jenkins