From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266103AbTLIU7W (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:59:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266107AbTLIU7V (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:59:21 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:20489 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266103AbTLIU7T (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:59:19 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: 9 Dec 2003 20:47:58 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <200312091322.33506.andrew@walrond.org> <1070979148.16262.63.camel@oktoberfest> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1071002878 24077 192.168.12.62 (9 Dec 2003 20:47:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <1070979148.16262.63.camel@oktoberfest>, Dale Whitchurch wrote: | A question for this thread: | | Is the GPL in effect for the kernel so that anybody can enhance the | current drivers and add support for any other device? If two companies | develop competing products and those products (albeit a few slight | differences) perform the same operations using almost the same hardware, | do we want one company to use the others driver? If company A writes a driver which is not GPL it doesn't concern the Open Source community. Not even if it's open source but proprietary. Yes, dual license exists, I don't think that changes things here. If company A writes a GPL driver company B may modify it as long as they release source. If company B offered the modified driver for kernel inclusion, there's a high probability one of the penguins would tell them to fold the changes into the original module and make it dual-purpose (unless there were a LOT of changes). Company B could decline and ship the GPL driver with their hardware, source and a binary loadable module included. Given the hassle factor I bet they wouldn't. Nvadia must be really tired of getting every problem related to a tainted kernel. | In another sense, does the kernel evolve to reflect this? If the | overall driver acts the same minus a few hardware differences, does the | kernel source change by abstracting the similarities and allow both | companies to write the device specific code? Does it instead say that | both cards must have independent source code? Or do we only allow the | first driver into the source tree? Once GPL'd the choices are clear, it could be separate or added functionality on a technical basis, no need for one policy to fit all. | | There are no evil overtones in this email, nor any disgruntled developer | feelings. I am just reading at this thread and asking myself, "Is the | overall goal for everyone to get along?" | | Dale Whitchurch | | - | To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in | the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org | More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html | Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.