Re: Must modules be GPL'ed?
Robert Riggs (rriggs@tesser.com)
Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:37:55 -0600 (MDT)
On 23-Apr-96 Alan Cox wrote:
>>> It appears that modules are frequently thought to be independent
>> entities that are using kernel services through a well defined
>> interface. In that respect, modules are much similar to user mode
>> programs; they just happen to reside on the other side of a protection
>> boundary. However, it has been pointed out by someone that modules
>> commonly contain inlined kernel functions imported from kernel header
>> files.
>
>Yes. You may want to make sure you dont use stuff from the kernel and
>functions from headers. In effect by keeping your object module binary
>only you have to work hard from scratch and will have a lot of issues
>keeping up with releases and generating new versions.
>
So why aren't the headers covered under the GNU Library General
Public License? That would make much more sense and avoid this
"included inline function" mess. Can we change the license on
the include files without too much hassle?
On the other hand... we could just say "screw you" to those
companies wanting to operate under NDAs. I don't think this
is a good thing for Linux or its users. NDAs are a fact of
life. (If memory serves, you are under a few NDAs yourself.)
Rob
(rriggs@tesser.com)