Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

[Ben Nizette <ben.nizette@iinet.net.au>]

v j wrote:
> This is in reference to the following thread:
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63
> 
> I am not sure if this is ever addressed in LKML, but linux is _very_
> popular in the embedded space. We (an embedded vendor) chose Linux 3
> years back because of its lack of royalty model, robustness and
> availability of infinite number of open-source tools.
[...]
> However we have a worrying trend here. If at some point it becomes
> illegal to load our modules into the linux kernel, then it is
> unacceptable to us. We would have been better off choosing VxWorks or
> OSE 3 years ago when we made an OS choice. The fact that Linux is
> becoming more and more closed is very very alarming.
> 
Question to the world here:  Distros make, as a matter of course, a 
series of modifications to the Linux Kernel so that their modules or 
features work.  What stops VJ making a patchset which effectively 
s/EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL/EXPORT_SYMBOL/g 's the kernel source then 
distributing that under the GPL?  He then supplies his un-GPL'd modules 
to the world which just happen to only run on the modified kernel.  I've 
read the GPL of course (IANAL though) and I can't see what this violates 
except the /spirit/ of the license.  Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly 
against anyone doing what I just mentioned, I believe it to be immoral 
taking someone's GPL'd code and mangling it in such a way.  I speak as 
an embedded developer myself whose company decided that running our code 
under Linux and distributing our code under the GPL was far preferable 
to running closed-source software on a closed-source platform.

I'll finish off to VJ:  If you want to be alarmed, go ahead and switch 
to VxWorks, the Linux community will live on.  It might have a smaller 
user-base in embedded-land but that's the nature of the beast.  A large 
user-base doesn't mean much to something like linux unless it comes with 
a large, open-source-minded developer-base.

--Ben.