| |||||||||||||
Support for drivers in user spaceSupport for drivers in user spacePosted Sep 14, 2006 8:57 UTC (Thu) by lgb (guest, #784)In reply to: Support for drivers in user space by bboissin Parent article: Support for drivers in user space
Well yes, I guess, the kernel part of these drivers should be released as GPL code. However, the bulk of the code is in user space ... If you were right, an average user space app is also a derivative work, since it's not only uses system calls, but may also use /dev or /proc or even /sys entries, besides syscalls. This splitted driver model just do this: a to-be-GPL'ed kernel part, and a user space part which needn't released as GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
Support for drivers in user space Posted Sep 14, 2006 15:05 UTC (Thu) by gwg (guest, #20811) [Link] Something that seems to be overlooked most of the time in thesediscussions, is that the GPL applies to "work based on the Program", and there are more types of such work that just derived work.
Another sort of work is a collective (or compilation) work.
For a work to be a collective work, I don't think that it
If a user mode driver is arranged to work with the kernel
Support for drivers in user space Posted Sep 14, 2006 21:54 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] That may possibly be a valid legal argument, but its irrelevant to Linux, since it has always exempted user-space programs from any Linux-related license requirement.
Support for drivers in user space Posted Sep 15, 2006 4:37 UTC (Fri) by gwg (guest, #20811) [Link] Linus's explanation in the Linux "COPYING" file is unclear. In the relevantsentence he states that "this copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls", which might be construed as meaning that the Kernel copyright does not regard user programs as ever being part of a "work based on the Program", or it could mean that no copyright is claimed over user programs just because they make system calls, or both, (these being two different things, one being the scope of a collective work, the other being the copyright on the user program).
But then he goes on to say " - this is merely considered normal use of the
Support for drivers in user space Posted Sep 15, 2006 16:42 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] One more point. Your argument is clearly not the intent of Linus' exception.
For example, if you are correct, a Linux LiveCD with Unreal Tournament included is violating the GPL.
Unreal Tournament communicates with the GPU directly (well, through OpenGL direct rendering libraries), just as a user-space driver would.
So if one is violating the GPL by your argument, so is the other, and that is clearly ridiculous.
Support for drivers in user space Posted Sep 16, 2006 2:32 UTC (Sat) by gwg (guest, #20811) [Link] It's hard to say from Linus's statement in the COPYING file alone, what his intention was.From common usage, you may regard such an interpretation as ridiculous, but that doesn't somehow invalidate the interpretation of the licence. If a different contributor to the Linux kernel wanted to make the interpretation I've made, then they could well take someone distributing something like Unreal Tournament on a LiveCD to court, and see if the court agrees that it's a collective work, and falls under the requirements of the GPL, as being a "work based on the Program", and that Linus's disclaimer only applies to derived works. I certainly regard anyone making use of my GPL licences code as being in violation of the licence, if they release a collective work that does not itself comply with the GPL licence (but then I don't have a Linus like disclaimer in my copy of the GPL).
|
|||||||||||||