On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 04:18:24PM +0200, Bjorn Wesen wrote:
> The software consists of the linux-kernel (maybe with some changes), some
> kernel modules containing drivers for hardware in the box,
[snip]
> However that leaves ambiguity regarding the modules, and his own
> applications.
[snip]
> Lets say that he really cannot make OSS of one of his own applications
> because he got it for use in his product under a restrictive license.
> And he cannot make OSS out of one of the kernel modules because he got the
> driver under a weird license from the guys he bought one of the HW
> interfaces from, and added some linux wrapping code around it. This is
> unfortunately a realistic scenario, speaking from own experience.
This is interesting. First of all, the applications: this is relatively
straightforward. So long as the apps don't link against any GPLd libraries,
or include any GPLd code, there's no problem (libc, for example, is LGPLd,
so that's OK). Linus' note at the top of linux/COPYING states that he does not
consider a program which communicates with the kernel via syscalls to be a
'derived work'.
Kernel modules, whether loadable or compiled in, are a different matter (but
I'm Really Not A Lawyer). My understanding is that if you link (statically or
dynamically) against a GPLd library, your code is a derived work. As kernel
modules are linked to the kernel, I'd imagine that they are, therefore,
derived works. Regardless of the linking issue, 99% of modules are going to
use the kernel headers, which are AFAIK also GPLd.
Having said all this, it's up to the copyright holder(s) to set and enforce
the license(s). I guess Linus holds the copyright on a lot of the core stuff
(i.e. the bits a driver would actually be linking against), but grep'ing for
"Copyright" in, say, linux/fs produces some files which don't claim to be
copyright Linus, or (more interestingly) which have multiple copyright
messages.
So Linus, for example, could say that he doesn't consider modules to be
derived works. But others who have contributed code, and therefore hold the
copyright on those bits, might disagree, which could get nasty.
Perhaps this should be clarified with another note at the top of
linux/COPYING, so people contributing code know where they stand.
Did anyone ever set up that linux-legal list, so we can move this there? I
don't want to piss off the regulars <g>
-- "If the bottom is falling out of your world, then have a drink here and the world will fall out of your bottom."- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/