Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

Hi David,

On Feb 3, 2008 5:12 PM, David Newall <davidn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
By the way, I'm almost certain that the COPYING file is the first, last
and only document specifying licence conditions, and nothing in that
prevents a proprietary driver from including a patch that, for example,
globally replaces ALL GPL-only symbols by the less restrictive ones.

So I am going to assume you're not trolling here (although some of
your snarky remarks make that bit hard).

A vendor is, of course, allowed to distribute a patch (under the GPLv2
proper) that removes the license checks no doubt‚ but it doesn't
change the fact whether the actual driver they're distributing (under
a proprietary license) is derived work or not (one way or another).
And, _if_ you're distributing a derived work that is not under the
GPLv2, you're breaking the law. I think we can agree on this?

As there is some controversy over the definition of derived work
(think Linus' comments on porting a driver or a filesystem from
another operating system here), we use the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
annotations as a big warning sign that what you're doing is likely to
be considered as a derived work. If the USB developers want to
annotate their code with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, why the hell do you want
to argue about it? They know the code better than you and as copyright
holders they can actually sue those parties distributing proprietary
code they think is derived work.

Bringing up Linux world domination or Microsoft market share in these
kind of discussion is totally pointless. The license is what it is
(GPLv2) and it seems unlikely to change at this point. If you want to
develop for Linux, you're most certainly better off always
distributing your code under the GPLv2; otherwise you really really
want to consult an IP lawyer to be sure. But what I don't understand
is why people insist using the Linux kernel for something it clearly
can never really properly support (proprietary code)?
--
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/

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
    ... > and write whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. ... > you dare to try distributing such a knock off novel, ... you do not have the right to create the derived work. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: OT Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs
    ... >>> driver is a derived work from the kernel in copyright terms, ... >> Every device driver includes common kernel headers without which they ... It doesn't make much sense to provide an interface ... Header files are likened to a laundry list. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work ... of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have ... think this specific case is a violation of the letter of the GPLv2, ... At least nobody involved in GPLv2, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: OT Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs
    ... driver is a derived work from the kernel in copyright terms, ... Every device driver includes common kernel headers without which they ... It doesn't make much sense to provide an interface ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: OT Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs
    ... > driver is a derived work from the kernel in copyright terms, ... Every device driver includes common kernel headers without which they ... It doesn't make much sense to provide an interface ...
    (Fedora)