linux-kernel - Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:24:28 -0600
From:	"Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
To:	"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	"v j" <vj.linux@...il.com>, "Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>,
	"Dave Jones" <davej@...hat.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Development" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

On 2/15/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, v j wrote:

> Personally, I see no real difference between EXPORT_SYMBOL and
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
> If you derive from GPL'ed code, your code is a derived work.
---

I agree with you that there's no difference in law, though I think the
difference is that neither creates a derived work. "Derived work" is a
very vague notion in law, and the case law on this has varied over
time. I think it would be a real crap shoot for both sides to bring
this to court, at least in the US.

Note, though, that I DO support the OSS equation and believe that
companies *should not* use closed-source modules, whether it's legal
or not, except in the very specific case of code that also works with
other systems. I think this ethical imperative goes with the nature of
the author's gift to the community.

scott
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/