[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: making a non-GPLed module
- To: linux-il(at-nospam)linux.org.il
- Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
- From: "Nadav Har'El" <nyh(at-nospam)math.technion.ac.il>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:43:11 +0200
- Delivered-To: linux.org.il-linux-il@linux.org.il
- Hebrew-Date: 11 Kislev 5762
- In-Reply-To: <m3adxacs9k.fsf@localhost.localdomain>; from ogoldshmidt@computer.org on Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 07:03:51PM -0500
- References: <m3adxacs9k.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
- Sender: linux-il-bounce(at-nospam)cs.huji.ac.il
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "making a non-GPLed module":
>
> 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
>...
> 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.
>...
> 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.
>...
> AC vocally disagrees. He basically says - drumroll - check with your
> lawyers, since you are exposed:
>...
These two opinions you quote, Linus's and Alan Cox's, are indeed the two
ends of the opinion spectrum, and everyone has their own opinion on the
issue. But if I remember the linux-kernel mailing list correctly, it is
widely believed (but don't believe me, check with your lawyer ;)) that:
1. only the copyright holder can sue you on copyright violation
2. Linus is considered to be *the* copyright holder of Linux (even if he
didn't write every piece of it himself).
3. Linus has made it well known that it is ok with him for people to create
binary-only modules.
So, because of #3 I don't think Linus has a case against you (after all, he
publically stated that what you're doing was fine with him), and because of #1
and #2 noone else can have a case against you.
Of course, whether this legal mumbo-jumbo really holds water is up for your
lawyer to advise you...
> 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.
Which is probably why Mosix was officially made GPL.
As far as I know, Mosix was always a sort-of-"free" academic project, but it
was never formally announced as free or GPL until it needed to do so because
of its use of Linux. By the way, before Linux, Mosix was based on BSDI, a
commercial BSD variant, so Mosix users would need to buy BSDI licenses - and
it couldn't just be given out freely, not even to other researchers.
> 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").
Nobody was ever sued on these issues, as far as I know, let alone a legal
precedence being set.
Anyway, it's possible to sue you in so many countries, that I'm not even
sure what legal precedence would mean...
P.S. I'm sure you know that binary-only modules suck. They usually work
only with the very specific kernels with which they were compiled. If you
had a laptop with a Lucent winmodem you'd know what I mean: they had a
binary-only driver for Linux (which is very nice of them, and worked well),
but every time a new kernel got out it stopped working properly, and people
started patching the binaries - until Lucent got some sense and released the
module's source.
So only go with binary-only modules if you *really* have to, or if you
intend to sell "closed" boxes in which people are not going to upgrade
kernels anyway.
--
Nadav Har'El | Monday, Nov 26 2001, 11 Kislev 5762
nyh@math.technion.ac.il |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |The knowledge that you are an idiot, is
http://nadav.harel.org.il |what distinguishes you from one.
=================================================================
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