The GPL is in fact quite clear.
Posted Oct 16, 2003 15:03 UTC (Thu) by
leonb (guest, #3054)
Parent article:
LinkSys and binary modules
I believe that the GPL is quite clear about the binary
module issues. Simply recall that the GPL only regulates
copying. When Nvidia distributes binary modules, this
distribution involves no copying of GPLed code.
What users do with these modules is their sole business.
"The act of running the program is not restricted"
The so-called viral nature of the GPL applies
only when you distribute a "whole" containing
sections covered by the GPL, and sections that
would not necessarily be GPLed if they were
distributed independently.
"But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of
the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole,
and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
The key word here is
distribute.
Linksys is indeed shipping boxes containing both the linux kernel
and binary modules. The binary modules might not be GPLed if they
were distributed separately. But this is not the case here.
Therefore the GPL applies.
Overall this is very annoying because it can be argued
that Linksys was acting in good faith. It could make
sense to settle by giving them a break for a few years only,
and ask them, in return, to make a donation to some worthy
open source cause. This is very unlikely to happen.
Such a break must be approved by all the kernel
contributors without exception.
When Linus decided not to request copyright
assignment, he made the GPL a lot nastier,
because nobody has the power to soften it
when it makes sense.
- Leon
P.S. ---
Incidentally this also clarifies the dynamic linking
versus static linking issues. Such technical issues
are irrelevant. What matters is the composition
of the products you are shipping. The GPL only bites
when you are shipping GPLed code copyrighted
by someone else.
(
Log in to post comments)