Linus talks about his decision to only allow proprietary modules if they only used
system calls and not considered linking against the kernel:
"The result for module makers was that you could write a proprietary module if you
used only the normal interface for loading.............If anyone were to abuse the
guidelines by using the exported symbols in such a way that they are doing it just
to circumvent the GPL, then I feel there would be a case for suing that person."
I took a good look at MOSIX's web site and sent some email to the group. I decided
that what they were up to was a circumvention of the GPL.
I for one can't believe that an academic team would be involved in such a thing.
It is clear that they are trying to leverage Linux's popularity to push their
product. MOSIX was developed on FreeBSD which isn't encumbered by the GPL. It
would appear that they have tried to preserve this state of affairs with Linux.
-Richard Solis
Mike Shaver wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > I consider it a violation of the GPL. Its not like OSS sound where the module
> > interface is simply used (that is viewing the _existing_ exported symbol
> > set as an API) they actually hack all the code up to call their modules
> > in ways it was never intended to and then to cripple the resulting code
> > so it only works across a group of 6 machines.
>
> I don't see how it's any less a violation of the GPL. Either you can
> link binary-only modules or you can't; whether Linus ``permits'' certain
> types of modules to link with the kernel -- based on legally-fun
> characteristics like who added the appropriate EXPORT_SYMBOL -- is only
> interesting from a GPL-violation perspective if he recently became a
> judge.
>
> If you're discussing whether Linus (or whoever owns that code -- he
> keeps saying that < 10% of the code is his, right?) wants to press
> something against them, then his personal preferences for link
> boundaries are certainly relevant, but then the GPL isn't. You're
> talking about ``GPL + certain specific, additional freedoms'', which is
> GPL-compatible, but not GPL.
>
> (A derivative of such a ``GPL+'' -- Linus-PL? -- body of code and some
> GPL'd code would likely be GPL itself, due to the nature of the GPL,
> which makes the 10% ownership issue even more interesting. Are binary
> modules legal at all? And does it matter, if nobody is going to go
> after those who distribute them with the kernel?)
>
> Mike
> (licenses are hard; let's go shopping)
>
> --
> 1551688.69 1125767.53
>
> -
> 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/
-
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/