| |||||||||||||
Proprietary loadable kernel modulesProprietary loadable kernel modulesPosted Mar 24, 2011 13:07 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: Proprietary loadable kernel modules by baldridgeec Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
That is the intent of the kernel hackers; whether the law agrees with this is quite another thing...
(Log in to post comments)
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 24, 2011 14:04 UTC (Thu) by etienne (subscriber, #25256) [Link]
The intent of the kernel hackers is a bit like the intent of GCC developers when they say that the resulting executable is not a derived work of GCC, or the intent of word processors developers when they say the final document is fully owned by the author of said document.
If the law disagree that may have very high consequences.
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 24, 2011 19:53 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] OK, perhaps I misspoke. What I meant is that the kernel gang considers stuff using userland interfaces OK under whatever licence you fancy (not in the sense that such code is "not derivative", but that that such use is allowed), while using kernel-internal interfaces (specially ones marked GPL-only) is strictly GPL. It might be that the law says that both uses create derivatives, in which case you are being given an explicit permission for userland while in-kernel use is strictly GPL-only because it is a derivative; or it might say neither does, in which case the whole discussion is moot.
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 25, 2011 0:42 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] The stated intent of the kernel hackers (or anyone in a similar position) has a great deal of effect when they say that something is permitted. If Linus says "you're in the clear as long as you don't use anything within
|
|||||||||||||