Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:28:27 +0100
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
"Derived works have to be under the same license"
where the rest is just really fluff.
But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's
what copyright law defines.
And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster. If you
push the definition of derived work to "anything that touches our work",
you're going to end up in a very dark and unhappy place. One where the
RIAA is your best buddy.
And the proposed "we make some technical measure whereby we draw our _own_
lines" is exactly that total disaster.
We don't draw our own lines. We accept that the lines are drawn for us by
copyright law, and we actually _hope_ that the lines aren't too sharp and
too clearcut. Because sharp edges on copyright is the worst possible
situation we could ever be in.
The reason fair use is so important is exactly that it blunts/dulls the
sharp knife that overly strong copyright protection could be.
All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent. For this exact reason,
I have added a "LICENSE" file [1] in my software (haproxy) stating that I
explicitly permit linking with binary code if the user has no other choice
(eg: protocols specs obtained under NDA), provided that "derived work"
does not steal any GPL code (include files are under LGPL). On the other
hand, all "common protocols" are developped under GPL so that normal users
are the winners, and everyone is strongly encouraged to use the GPL for
their new code to benefit from everyone else's eyes on the code.
This clarifies my intent and let developers decide whether *they* are
doing legal things or not.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to add such a precision in the
sources ? It could put an end to all those repeated lessons you have to
teach to a lot of people about fair use. Or perhaps you like to put
your teacher hat once a month ? :-)
I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
them somehow.
So, why don't we make an official statement, like something that will appear
on the front page of www.kernel.org, that the users of binary-only drivers
will never get any support from us? That would make things crystal clear.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
- Stephen King
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
- From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
- From: Gene Heskett
- Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
- From: Willy Tarreau
- Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: sata badness in 2.6.20-rc1? [Was: Re: md patches in -mm]
- Next by Date: Re: [S390] Fix reboot hang on LPARs
- Previous by thread: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
- Next by thread: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
