Re: Must modules be GPL'ed?

Hans Lermen (lermen@elserv.ffm.fgan.de)
Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:51:56 +0200 (MET DST)


On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Janne Peltonen wrote:

> I just read the GPL but I am still unsure whether loadable kernel
> modules qualify as work derived from the kernel (FAQ, I know..).

IMHO modules _must_ be GPL'ed. The main points I see are:

1. The inlined kernel functions _are_ part of the kernel code.
( as you already pointed out )

2. The modules in fact don't get _loaded_ but _linked_ into the kernel.
Insmod is just a tiny linker, which in principal mimics ld.

>
> It appears that modules are frequently thought to be independent
> entities that are using kernel services through a well defined
> interface.

No, the are not independent, because they got _linked_ (see 2.),
they are part of the kernel.

> In that respect, modules are much similar to user mode
> programs; they just happen to reside on the other side of a protection
> boundary.

Not at all. Modules are _pure kernel code_, they live in kernel space,
they run in kernel space, they have direct access to the kernel resources
without need of syscall interface (as would have user processes).

Hans
<lermen@elserv.ffm.fgan.de>