[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: making a non-GPLed module



Hi Oleg,

To make it short...

You can make a binary-only module without any problem AS LONG as you don't 
modify the kernel sources itself (see the LWN story about symbols are not 
changed every micro release)...

Now - it really depends how do u make this module. I would suggest that to do 
like what NVidia does (to provide a wrapper to compile it against any kernel).

Hope this helps...

-- 
Hetz Ben Hamo
hetz@kde.org

On Monday 26 November 2001 02:03 am, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Let's say a company is considering making a kernel module out of
> a piece of software. Never mind the reasons to make it a kernel module
> - assume they are good and valid. There is no intention to sneak this
> module into the mainstream kernel - it's an add-on. Suppose there is a
> requirement to distribute it in binary form only, loadable via
> insmod/rmmod.
>
> I have researched the various web sources, such as LKML, LWN, etc
> (oh, well, through Google, of course), and I cannot figure out if
> there is a consensus on whether this would violate GPL or not.
> To avoid possible repetition of what I have learned already, here are
> the highlights of what I found.
>
> The only hint to consensus seems to be in the assertion that it is
> open to interpretation, and the suggestion to consult one's lawyer
> (who is likely to be ignorant on GPL or software or anything relevant).
>
> Linus seems to say that as long as a module does not touch the kernel
> itself, uses standard API only, and is not distributed together with
> the kernel, it's OK to release it in the binary form only.
>
> http://lists.insecure.org/linux-kernel/2000/Sep/1491.html
>
> here is Linus' note from the kernel's COPYING file.
>
>    NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
>  services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
>  of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived
>  work".
>
> From what I've read "user programs" here include loadable kernel
> modules (see ESR's view below).
>
> AC vocally disagrees. He basically says - drumroll - check with your
> lawyers, since you are exposed:
>
> http://lwn.net/2001/0614/a/ac-modules.php3
>
> ESR tries to clarify,
>
> http://lwn.net/2001/0628/a/esr-modules.php3
>
> and is also proposing a legal clarification here (a modification to
> the COPYING note quoted above), but AFAIK it has not been adopted by
> Linus (yet), nor is it clear to me whether the suggestion is
> compatible with GPL.
>
> Apparently, this is a hot topic. ESR's message is dated June 2001, and
> he mentions "jittery nerves at a lot of companies that are worried
> about this issue".
>
> Some Israeli companies probably know a bit or two about the issue. One
> recent controversy involved MOSIX, who allegedly violated GPL by
> hacking the kernel itself rather than sticking to writing modules.
>
> Does anyone know if a consensus has been reached? Can someone point me
> to the right source? NB, I am not looking for opinions (unless you are
> a lawyer, in that case don't bill me yet), just for information or
> experiences (as in "I/XYZ Ltd was sued for writing a closed-source
> module and won/lost").
>
> I am hesitant to post to LKML. It has been discussed there several
> times, and I don't want to subscribe to or sift through this huge
> volume of traffic. There are people here who follow LKML, maybe they
> can point me to the right place?
>
> Thanks,


=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il