Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]

From: Rob Landley (rob_at_landley.net)
Date: 10/05/03

  • Next message: Larry McVoy: "Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]" 
    To: andersen@codepoet.org, "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de>, Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
Date:	Sat, 4 Oct 2003 19:52:09 -0500

    On Monday 15 September 2003 00:57, Erik Andersen wrote:
    > On Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:17:37AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
    > > Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org> writes:
    > > >When you are done making noise, please explain how a closed
    > > >source binary only product that runs within the context of the
    > > >Linux kernel is not a derivitive work and therefore not subject
    > > >to the terms of the GPL, per the definition given in the kernel
    > > >COPYING file that grants you your limited rights for copying,
    > > >distribution and modification.
    > >
    > > "Because Linus said so".
    >
    > It does not say "Because Linus said so" in the Linux kernel
    > COPYING file, which is the only official document that grants
    > legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the kernel.

    Linus clearly and publicly stated his position on binary only kernel modules
    almost exactly one year ago:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44.0210170958340.6739-100000%40home.transmeta.com.lucky.linux.kernel

    He basically said there IS no module exception to the GPL, it's just a
    question of what is and is not a derived work.

    The kernel developers have marked up portions of the API to indicate "we
    consider anything that needs to access this deeply internal bit to be a
    derived work, hence subject to the GPL". That's what GPL_ONLY _means_.
    Needing to re-export that therefore opens you up to a lawsuit. (Whether you
    can defend yourself in court from that lawsuit is always an open question,
    but by adding GPL_ONLY markup the developers made their intent much more
    clear, which is unlikely to help you convince a judge of your interpretation
    if you explicitly undo that markup and then claim the license doesn't apply
    to you...)

    Here's the relevant section of the above posting from Linus:

    -----

    I will re-iterate my stance on the GPL and kernel modules:

      There is NOTHING in the kernel license that allows modules to be
      non-GPL'd.

      The _only_ thing that allows for non-GPL modules is copyright law, and
      in particular the "derived work" issue. A vendor who distributes non-GPL
      modules is _not_ protected by the module interface per se, and should
      feel very confident that they can show in a court of law that the code
      is not derived.

      The module interface has NEVER been documented or meant to be a GPL
      barrier. The COPYING clearly states that the system call layer is such a
      barrier, so if you do your work in user land you're not in any way
      beholden to the GPL. The module interfaces are not system calls: there
      are system calls used to _install_ them, but the actual interfaces are
      not.

      The original binary-only modules were for things that were pre-existing
      works of code, ie drivers and filesystems ported from other operating
      systems, which thus could clearly be argued to not be derived works, and
      the original limited export table also acted somewhat as a barrier to
      show a level of distance.
    -
    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/

  • Next message: Larry McVoy: "Re: freed_symbols [Re: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]]"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: GPL Violation?
      ... If you're distributing a product which contains both the kernel and some ... is a derived work. ... Read section 2 of the GPL carefully: ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Novels statement re copying SuSE 9.2 Pro
      ... >> under the GPL as well. ... The distribution being a work is also clearly a ... >> derived work of the kernel. ... derived work, and must be released under the GPL. ...
      (alt.os.linux.suse)
    • Re: EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL recursive for shim and/or wrappers
      ... kernel and thus should be under GPL themselves. ... It doesn't fully exclude the "shims". ... not a derived work of the kernel if certain care is taken not to expose ... the writers of the proprietary part to the internals of the GPL code. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
      ... are part of a derivative work of the kernel or whether they are ... And thus not affected by the GPL _if_ they are distributed as separate ... actually involve those modules being a derived work at all. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
      ... You have _read_ the licence, ... themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those ... This is why kernel modules can have their own, ... by the GPL. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)