[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
making a non-GPLed module
- To: linux-il(at-nospam)linux.org.il
- Subject: making a non-GPLed module
- From: Oleg Goldshmidt <ogoldshmidt(at-nospam)computer.org>
- Date: 25 Nov 2001 19:03:51 -0500
- Delivered-To: linux.org.il-linux-il@linux.org.il
- Organization: Speaking for myself only.
- Original-Sender: ogoldshmidt@computer.org
- Reply-To: linux-il(at-nospam)linux.org.il
- Sender: ogoldshmidt(at-nospam)computer.org
- Sender: linux-il-bounce(at-nospam)cs.huji.ac.il
- User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
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,
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@NOSPAM.computer.org
If it aint't broken it hasn't got enough features yet.
=================================================================
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