Posted Feb 26, 2004 12:59 UTC (Thu) by simlo
In reply to: invalidate_mmap_range() again
Parent article: invalidate_mmap_range() again
There are morally differences. But even though the interface is changed and the system can only run on Linux the filesystem itself is not anymore a derivative work of Linux than RCU is a derivative of Unix.
Ofcourse Linux + the filesystem is a kind derivative work as if Linux + Nvidia driver. If distributing <Linux>+<Nvidia driver> is legal then is
<your own version of Linux>+<what ever file system module you want to make>.
You can't have legal decitions based on "how integrated it is", "if it was
written for other os'es." It must be either or. And in the end a judge must decide on where the line is.
The decision I would want was that you can do anything to the kernel you want - including changes to the interfaces. You then have to destribute that under GPL. But on that product you can load whatever module you want.
If that can't be seen as within the GPL, no distributing binary modules along with the kernel is within the GPL. I can't see that a judge can decide "in between".
I wish we could have a case going to court such we can get this decided. The worst thing is that we don't know what is what. If it is decided that binary modules isn't ok, we can always make userspace drivers. I am pretty sure that in that case RedHat will put such an interface into their Linux even if Linus wont because people _need_ non-GPL drivers (to have them in userspace would also greatly impact stability.)
to post comments)