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

It is precisely the fact that it is a loadable module, and does not form
part of the kernel, that removes the requirement to distribute it under GPL.

That would be your own personal strange opinion.

Having actually spent time with lawyers on the subject the question that
matters for the GPL is the line between a derivative work and a
non-derivative work. The former the GPL covers - the latter it does not.
That is totally independent of the technical implementation of the
loading and combining of the code.

There is even at least one case where the lawyers on both sides of a
dispute have concurred that something is derivative because it was closely
dependant on a backend that it communicated with by pipes and was useless
without that backend and clearly built solely to use it.

Mechanism is not important, whether you are doing RPC calls, dynamic
linking or static linking isn't part of the creative process.

The only exception to the derivative work question is usual system calls.
I don't think anyone expects those to create a derivative work anyway but
just in case the law gets a bit carried away the COPYING file for the
kernel explicitly covers this to ensure there is certainty about running
totally seperate proprietary applications on the Linux kernel.

Alan
--
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: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
    ... > be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel. ... I agree with both you and the gpl faq writers that "communicates at arms ... > hurt as we would consider the bios as being a derivative work of the kernel ... > they are running, or the bootloader, or the firmware present in proms on ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... going to get into arguments over whether kernel modules are "derivative ... Who cares about whether the module is a derivative work? ... it's a _whole_ lot easier to interpret the GPL. ... kernels license. ...
    (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: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
    ... What you are really saying is the Linux does not have a GPL license. ... Linux Kernel License. ... >> I have and the lawyers tell me that it is one or the other and can not ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
    ... The question is whether it is a derivative work. ... with a single C program incompatible with the GPL. ... loads it into the kernel, does that necessarily violate the GPL? ... The 'code that interfaces the binary blob with the kernel' would then be ...
    (Linux-Kernel)