Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

> Define "successfully". Just because kernel people have not stopped a
> company from distributing proprietary kernel modules doesn't mean they
> won't.  You're basically arguing, "It must be OK because they haven't
> been caught."

I define successfully as distributing the module for a minimum length of time (say, six to
twelve months) without legal challenges being brought against you.  That's my personal
definition.

> if you read the GPL you'll find it has a lot to say about how you can
> distribute GPL'd code and non-GPL code that is derived from it.

Then you get into the quagmire of defining derived.  Even Linus Torvalds stated that,
"including one header file in order to compile against something does not automatically make
something a 'derived work'."[1]  There is also the fact that the comments in
include/linux/module.h specifically mention the ability to define the license used for the
module, including using "Proprietary" as an example of a non-free module license identifier.
See my other post at http://lwn.net/Articles/258419/ which has a copy of the comments from
module.h.

These public statements combined with the comments in the module.h header file show explicit
intent to allow non-free modules to be used with the kernel.

> I suggest you look toward sources related to copyright law rather than
> toward whether the kernel provides an API.  

If you know of any case law that I can read that addresses this type of issue I would be happy
to read it.

> Your API talk just demonstrates that you're new here and don't begin to
> understand the real issues.

I will admit that I misused the term API; however, I have a strong understanding of the real
issues even if I'm not a kernel programmer.  I have also cited primary sources to support my
statements.

1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/218