Re: Must modules be GPL'ed?
Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Wed, 1 May 1996 21:38:58 +0100 (BST)
> Stick to this kernel. A supplier of a heart-lung machine or an
> industrial robot normally have a service contract with (or at least
> a service liability to) the customer. Thus the supplier wants the
> customer to use a kernel version that is thoroughly tested (with this
> particular hardware and this particular device driver).
> When it is time to upgrade, the supplier will send the customer
> a new kernel and a new binary device driver module. (And normally
> it is the service personnel of the supplier that does the upgrade.)
>
>
> Admittedly this reason is not applicable to the vast majority of device
> drivers, but I find it to be very legitimate. Of course this reason
> is often combined with other reasons like "very smart hardware".
Its utterly anti the GPL concept too. The GPL view of that case is the vendor
should supply kernel and driver and support. The customer gets NO SUPPORT
beyond what is otherwise agreed (ie this kernel this driver or we dont want
to know), but if for example the supplier goes bust can get a third party
to take over the work.
Alan