Strange

Posted Nov 3, 2005 3:47 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

Two things that may help to understand this: it's not *all* the kernel developers who interpret the license this way; and it's not just "now", many kernel developers have felt this way from their first code contribution.

> Why not just make all the kernel symbols GPL-only

This is an ongoing debate. I'd certainly shed no tears if direct connections to the kernel code were assured to be GPL only.

> What about Linus' exception for binary drivers added before the GPL?

Linus is one of those kernel developers who does *not* feel strongly that binary kernel code is copyright infringement. It's not a homogenous pool of policy, it's a dictatorship :-)

> And finally, why sue a Linux distributor rather than the creator of the
> module?

The creator of the module did not (presumably) perform an act covered by copyright in the kernel code; writing one's own software cannot be covered by the copyright of someone else's software.

The license terms of the GPL code in the kernel only apply to those who would perform acts covered by the copyright holder's copyright; that includes distributing the code along with something else that links to it. Thus, it is distribution of the binary driver with the GPL code, not writing the driver in the first place, that violates the copyright.