Re: Announce: DinX windowing system 0.2.0

Rick Hohensee (humbubba@smarty.smart.net)
Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:31:46 -0500 (EST)


On the subject of licensing kernel modules differently that the kernel...

Mike A. Harris
>If it modifies ANY existing kernel source, it would be in
>violation of GPL regardless of if it is linked monolithically or
>modularly.

The GNU GPL emphasis on sourcecode is so that you can remain in control
of "the program", and so that the author can retain credit for creating it.
The ultimate object of these concerns is the running program. The apparent
emphasis on sourcecode is merely because that is usually crucial to
maintaining control and accountability of "the program". It is perfectly
feasible and not un-heard-of to create programs without a "sourcecode"
phase. Such a program also has authorship rights that the GPL could be
applied to.

Kernel modules are utterly unified at runtime with the program in question,
the Linux kernel, and are in no way a separate entity as pertains to
authorship. If a user can't tell a module from an app, great. They don't
write them. Whether modules modify kernel sourcecode is irrelevant, they
are running in the same "process space", kernel space, with full and
unrestricted access to the rest of the program they are an inate part of.
I assume it's a rare module that references no kernel symbols. This isn't
"linking", this is being the same program.

Kernel modules are utterly derived works of the kernel.

The GPL requires that derived works of GPL'ed works be GPL'ed.

The authors of GPLed works may make exceptions. I urge the authors of Linux
to refuse and discourage requests for such exceptions, and to speak plainly
about unauthorized violations.

Rick Hohensee
cLIeNUX user 0
(rant about Winmodems deleted, believe it or not)

-
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/