Re: GPL issues

[Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3277 bytes --]

linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Ramakanth Gunuganti wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thanks for the replies, talking to a lawyer seems to
>>be too stringent a requirement to even evaluate Linux.
>>Who would be the ultimate authority to give definitive
>>answers to these questions?
>>
>>Since it's the Linux kernel that's under GPLv2, any
>>work done here should be released under GPLv2. That
>>part seems to be clear, however any product would
>>include other things that could be proprietary. If
>>Linux kernel is made part of this proprietary package,
>>how does the distribution work. Can we just claim that
>>part of the package is under GPL and only release the
>>source code for the kernel portions.
>>
> 
> [See bottom. Please do not top-post.]
> 
> 
>>-Ram
>>
>>--- Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Apr 11, 2006, at 02:31:27, Ramakanth Gunuganti
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am trying to understand the GPL boundaries for
>>>
>>>Linux, any
>>>
>>>>clarification provided on the following issues
>>>
>>>below would be great:
>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>Anyone trying to build a new application to work
>>>
>>>on Linux must have
>>>
>>>>these issues clarified, if you can share your
>>>
>>>experiences that
>>>
>>>>would be great too.
>>>
>>>If you're planning to make money off of any code
>>>developed based in
>>>part off of the Linux Kernel, you should definitely
>>>contact a lawyer
>>>familiar with the linux kernel and ask them.  Any
>>>advice you get from
>>>this list should probably come prefixed with
>>>"IANAL", and as such
>>>isn't worth terribly much.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Kyle Moffett
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> Nobody can produce a definitive answer because nobody knows
> what you are doing. You could be making a module that exposes
> the entire contents of the kernel to user-space, then writing
> user-space programs that manipulate the kernel. Such user-space
> programs are then <probably> derived works and would need a GPL
> License.
> 
> On the other hand, you could be making a Hexagrid-confuser(tm)
> that runs a Pyrosynchrogem(tm), both proprietary items your
> company manufactures for the Red Sox. You need to make a kernel
> driver to interface with it, plus a whole bunch of proprietary
> user-mode software to help the Red Sox win another world series.
> In this case, only the driver needs to be GPL as long as it
> doesn't extend or modify the established Unix/Linux API. BUT,
> you imply that you need to modify the kernel in addition to
> writing a driver. This means that you are extending the API,
> which just __might__ require that any code that interfaces
> with that extension be GPL as well. That's why you __need__
> a lawyer if you are going to change the kernel to run your code.
> 
> Easiest way out is to make a conventional driver to interface
> with your device. Then write proprietary code that interfaces
> with it. Do not make any kernel changes, and do publish your
> driver under a GPL license.

Might be worth mentioning that if you intend to write a driver
that interfaces with any kernel under any license (bar any
kernel that you write yourself), be it Windows, Linux, *BSD,
etc you SHOULD talk to a lawyer as every license has it's
quirks and gotchas.

This is NOT specific to the GPL or the Linux kernel.

// Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 253 bytes --]